The trial court's claim for plaintiff's claim was that he was the son and widow of the last deceased owner of the suit land, the joint plaintiff of the plaintiff and the defendants, but that the plaintiffs' inheritance was simply the plaintiffs' plaintiffs' suit. Names changed to The lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs was conducted by the trial court and the appellate court through a legitimate plaintiff - a claim cannot be made between the plaintiff and the deceased landlord regarding the marriage. That the plaintiff had married someone other than her. Dead and that after the death of the other person he contracted the second marriage with the witness of the deceased landlord, Syed, however, admitted that he was not in question at the time of the marriage and that he was unaware that the marriage. When was the last time and who said whether the spouses were to prove to the plaintiffs that they were entitled to be the sons and widows of the deceased in the suit property, but they could not relinquish their burden to the defendants? The denial resulted in substantial evidence to prove that the plaintiff was not the heir to his predecessor's variation, in the circumstances, properly deferred. The defendants were the deceased's sons with two shares and the deceased's daughter with one share. The simultaneous investigation of the courts below the courts under illegal or irregular, misreading or non-reading of evidence was not in favor of the courts. Requested relief, review request against the above results denied, under circumstances \ r \ n \ r \ n
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
