A. Twelfth, R6 Laws in the Evidence (of 10 of 1984), Article 113 of the Specific Relief Act (of 1877), the Section 42 suit claims to have filed a lawsuit for the decision on admission, pursuant to property. Owned by the foregoing parties. Defectively distributed on the basis of their shares, the defendants allege that the transfer of property by gift from one defendant to another in favor of another defendant is ineffective and inapplicable to the trial of the plaintiff. And the appellate court dismissed the evidence of litigation with the accused. It is established that the suit is owned by the proprietors of the property and after his death, all of his legal inheritance was entitled to his legacy in accordance with his Shariah shares, the claimant preferred by the claimant in his case. And there was no disagreement with his statement before the court, such claims of the plaintiffs, in the circumstance enjoying the legacy that the testimony of the law, along with Article 113 of 1984, as well as Article XII, R6 Also, the CPC plaintiffs could not deviate from their requests that the plaintiffs present their evidence which was authentic and reliable, without which any witness S was not specified. The evidence presented by the defendants to the facts of the case in the investigation by the defendants was also acknowledged by the defendants, which were examined by the trial court for the findings presented by the trial court. And they came to the conclusion that the decision and the decree were approved. According to the law obtained by the trial court on record, the question of fact was the following of the two courts simultaneously.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
