A suit was filed at the same time for a plaintiff suing a plaintiff for a Section 42 lawsuit, both the trial court and the appellate court below the plaintiff claiming to be the landlord. Due to fraud, misrepresentation, the suit property was actually the property of the plaintiff without any adverse impact on its rights, the defamation changes show the sale of the claim by the plaintiff in favor of the plaintiff The real brother of the plaintiff was. One is the veil over the issue that deals with illiterate, illiterate / illiterate counseling women need to be considered very carefully and carefully, and in dealing with such people, their transactions benefit. It will be the duty of the bearers to stabilize and prove it. Reliable evidence that this transaction was free will, with no ill effects h Identify both the witnesses in the present case, as well as the local commissioner, were not related to the plaintiff at any time. Well, when the alleged statement was being recorded, the witness who testified that there was no consideration of the sale, the defendant, in his presence, in his cross-inspection, requested that the sale be made. There is no witness to the payment to consider because he has to prove the fact of the matter himself. Plaintiff paid the sale for, but failed to exclude, the conclusions reached by the courts below, in the circumstances, were correct and, according to law, a finding of factual solidarity, on the record. Something wrong again
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
