Section 3 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), Articles 42 and 54 of the perpetual injunction in the interest of the plaintiff and his widow and the plaintiffs who were his daughters died in 1943, during the rule of Swat and the plaintiff. ? In his claim, only the plaintiff's legal inheritance challenged the inherent hegemony of his predecessor, saying that he was the deceased's brother and nephew, who were brothers and nephews of the deceased accused. Challenged that the defendants had stopped paying the produce from the deceased's abandoned land and that the defendants had acquired separate property and said that the trial court collectively named the defendant in the defendant's trial court. The order passed in favor of the plaintiffs was passed by the plaintiff in the case and the other defendants who were the cousins of the adjourned appellate court. Zoya allowed the appeal against the trial court's decision and injunction that could affect the injunction for evil. I had retained shares in my predecessor's legacy, however, the sales changes, which were also challenged. Was retained because the plaintiff's shares could be disclosed, which could be obtained from the lands of the shopkeepers in possession of the deceased defendants' inheritance. The defendants were paid regularly according to their maintenance, their joint statement for payment of ten corn maize, five mandala barley and five wheat wheat, and within a month, the defendants claimed that they were The plaintiff accepted the payment of restitution in lieu of the legacy of his predecessor, whom the defendants considered to be a distant relative, taking care of sympathy.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
