The trial court and the appellate court both at once rejected the plaintiff's claim that he was in possession of the suit property as a successor since the plaintiff claimed in his predecessor's interests. What was the suit property had no right to claim ownership. And that the entries in the record of the revenue in the name of the defendants were illegal, fraudulent and collectible and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff claimed that the inheritance in respect of the property in favor of the defendants. The change was also illegal. And the plaintiff's disputed claims of plaintiffs 'disputed claims on defendants' rights, claiming that the plaintiff failed to prove his ownership of the property. In the evidence of the claim, the defendants examined by the plaintiffs, the witnesses made controversial and contradictory statements, hardly enough to believe the long entries in the settlement record, and in the rights entries contained therein, the claimants. Has never been in the control of Plaintiffs did not challenge the interest in their predecessor's life, but such entries were challenged after the death of their predecessor in interest, with Plaintiffs no locus standi to challenge the income entries. Defendant's predecessor supporting the record ownership and after his father's death, the defendants were recorded as property owners The notion of right attached to the record of rights in favor of the defendants And strong evidence was needed to deny it, which was absent in this case. Plaintiffs
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
