Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), the declaration of Section 42 Title Fake Mutant Registration Mutual Registration and the registered sale deed plaintiff claims to be the co-owner of the suit property on a half-yearly basis. In favor of its predecessor in interest, CellDad 16 sale dates back to 1920, while defendant who relied on the variable entry in the tax records to deny the plaintiff's claim related to the variable entry in favor of advancement. Are. 16 6 1920, that the defendant or his predecessor could not remain the exclusive owner of the disputed property because the plaintiff and the defendant were the owners of half of the disputed property in equal shares. The record of income shows that the defendant's In the interest of entry into the name of the forerunner was the result of a fraud that failed the most serious action. Once the variable was challenged, a party that relied on such a mutation was obliged to return the petition to the original transaction, which resulted in the registration or ratification of the change in question to the plaintiff. Failed to bring any documents on record to prove religion in which the entry in question was in the interest of his predecessor as a special owner. Controversial property and vice versa, the current document on record, namely the registered sale deed 16 of 1920, proved that the plaintiff owned half of the property, which was illegally owned as a shareholder in the record of income. Was missing In the interest of the defendants, the change in revenue records in the name of the foregoing was the result of fraudulent registration and was contrary to the registered sale deed,
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2011
