Articles 42, 54 and 39 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), suit AXXXI, RR 2, 3 and 10, the trial court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the injunction, order dismissal and documents dismissed by the appellate court. In response to a question based on a contract of sale by the claimant in his favor dismissing the claimant's claim for ownership, it was claimed that the declaration suit was not capable of a retaliation proceeding. The plaintiff needs to prove that the claimant was entitled to a sale agreement with him in respect of the property. But the minor witnesses in the sale agreement were not presented to the court in question. The testimony of the witnesses was of no value to the defendant's case as he testified only that the plaintiff was in possession of the property which he rented. Had taken on and was. The tenant had to establish a legal title in favor of the claimant in order to receive the rent from the defendant on which he could grant the claimant did not have any legal title in favor of the claimant at the time of the sale agreement because the property at that time Because the owner was alive, the plaintiff filed a claim for declaration and cancellation of the document only on the question that the property belonging to his father was not claimed. , The plaintiff was not required to obtain possession because it resulted in a relief suit, therefore, the retaining trial court was obliged to calculate the amount of court fees paid by the plaintiff in its succession. But the condition was not met, therefore, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the required court fee.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2011
