Articles & 54 and Spec 55 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), suit for possession, declaration, permanent and directory prohibition, sale of property with an uneducated and destitute woman, fraudulent and fraudulent litigation suit. Was. Plaintiff's claim by the trial court and the appellate court was that she, as the owner of the suit property, had not entered into a sale case with the defendants. And that the entries in connection with the sale transaction entered into the revenue record were in the power of false and fraudulent alterations. The plaintiffs failed to prove the sale transaction in their favor through the alleged testimony of the plaintiff cell allegiance. , At the time of confirmation, the claimant was not present. And that the defendants did not undertake any review of the sale in their presence, considering the sale was an essential part of the sale. Must prove by conviction and confidence. Evidence that after the sale transaction, consideration of the sale was paid to the defendants, who were the plaintiff's original brother, failed to prove. This sale case was impacted by the claimant. That the claimant had considered the sale. That he made a statement to the Revenue Officer. That it affected this variation with the thumb. And because the Revenue Officer forced her to understand the nature of the transaction because she was an illiterate and attractive woman, in this case all the terms of the transaction with a Parnassian woman were missing, the defendant being true to the sale transaction. Were unable to prove that they were real
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
