Articles 42 & 54 54 Gift for Suit Declaration and Permanent Order for Defamation Plaintiff claimed to have inherited a share in her father's inheritance The parties' proponents, which consisted of three pieces of property, acted on their actions. Was given two shares of the said property. The first son, his grandson and grandson, kept a third of the property for himself during his life, and after his death his son would own what was then a minor. And that the other legal heirs of his former sons would not have any resemblance to the plaintiff, who was fully aware of the said matters, could not provide any evidence that his father had inherited his legacy from the plaintiff. As a property was abandoned, in the circumstances, they were seized, claiming that the third part of the property is his father's inheritance word \ gift \ although in the process implemented by the parties' proposal Not mentioned, but this kind of strangulation was a perfect gift in all its intentions and purpose that failed. To prove that a legacy was left open at the time of his proposal's death, the courts below were not allowed to justify the offense filed by the plaintiff, which was reached by the courts below, not only on false reading and on record. The evidence available was non-readable, but the law was against the provisions of the judgment and the orders of both the courts were set aside below and the plaintiff's case was dismissed, in which case he was dismissed. Was \ r \ n
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
