MST. NISHAT ALIAS SHATO versus MUSLIM KHAN ALIAS MUSALI
Section 42 Laws on Evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 79, 80, 102, 103, 127 and 129 (G) Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Section 60 Transfer Property Act (IV of 1882), Section 554 Contract Act ( IX of 1872), on behalf of his real uncle (defendant), the plaintiff's orphaned wife of 20 years, by the niece (plaintiff) on section 16 suit, alleged sale deed. Counterfeit, fraudulent and deliberate; and that until he was sued, the plaintiff was involved in the production of the suit, and he received a contract of sale with a light-proof ounce of patwari to prove such a sale as the defendant testified. Deprecated on That in its presence the sale offered to the claimant is considered. The sub-registrar's office was Rs 6,000 considering the sale was Rs 2,000, which did not show the impression of the thumb on the defendant's testimony, for the defendant's testimony was beyond the terms of the sale agreement. Such an assertion was not admissible, through the evidence witnesses before the Sabbath Registrar, by Arts 102 and 103 of Lambard 1984, neither the secondary evidence was found to prove his signature nor the recorded evidence about Lambard's death. Was brought, nor did the plaintiff inspect the sale of the dead. As the Sub-Registrar is an important witness, the law can be construed against the defendant under Article 129 (g) of the testimony, the 1984 defendant failed to prove the executive, according to a monthly report, of the plaintiff on legal proceedings. The signature does not match the approved signature, while its thumbprint matches the recognized thumbprint, as the expert opinion is the weakest type in other materials of supersession available on record.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
