On the basis of the applicability of the plaintiff's principle, the final outcome of the fact, by the two courts below the approval and extension of the minor age of one of the shareholders of the Section 42 Litigation Act (IX of 1908), Article 44 The suit property division asserted that when the distribution process was carried out, one of the plaintiffs was in the minor at one point in which the plaintiff acknowledged the delivery of the property to the predecessor in the interest of the defendants and, on the other occasion, the plaintiff had filed their Denied the right in which his predecessor was given. Interested in the consolidation of the same Partition Deed, both the following courts rejected the claim and appeal filed by the accused. The Valuation Partition Deadline was either to be accepted tomorrow or denied altogether and for this reason, the plaintiffs could not be allowed to choose and elect. , The findings of the two courts below were in accordance with the material available on record if any of the plaintiffs was Manu. r At the time of implementation of the distribution process, the law required them to file a declaration within three years of attaining the age of majority, but under the law they had sued for more than three years and He had objection to age. First raised before the High Court, which cannot be raised, the findings of the two courts below were in accordance with the law and the coordination of facts was against the plaintiffs who could not be interfered with unless it was established that It was based on a false statement. Or reading the material evidence available on the record, or the courts below failed to exercise jurisdiction provided for under the law
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
