Sections 42 & Q 54 of the Law Testimony (of 1984 of of), Section 127 Plaintiffs filed a permanent injunction with restraint and possession on the basis that they were the heirs of the victims in the disputed property. They are entitled to share and request a gift change and the sale transaction should be canceled and the record of the income to the extent of their shares should be corrected. The defendants sued on the basis that the gift transfer was confirmed after the completion of all gifts required for the legitimate gift and the transfer of the land. On the appeals filed by both sides, the appellate court dismissed the remaining petitions, partial decisions approved by the trial and approved by the trial court. The evidence in the record of the justified record shows that was done, was not done, acceptance of the gift was not proved by God. The gift was not given to the disputed property was not sensitive to the original occupation, despite the donor's death Defendants were later acquitted by the non-confiscation of the possession made the alleged gift inappropriate. Evidence presented by the defendants in relation to the prosecution's substitution and misconduct under Article 127 of the banned evidence under law Was brought to the record for dismissal, the 1984 defendants partly failing to exclude the evidence placed on them under the High Court. Requesting a revision request and making the controversial change illegal, illegal
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
