Articles 17 (2), 79 and 117 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), Section 42, the case of exchange of agricultural land of the plaintiff in which the plaintiff is accused of being a fraud-proof plaintiff. The affidavit stated that he did not appear before the sub-registrar to prove the process of exchange and registration of the exchange, and that the exchange and its plaintiff for the purpose of proving such transactions were subject to litigation. To prove it. Nor did it examine the witness, author, or party in which Khosragadawari stated that the plaintiff had seized the land, the plaintiff did not produce documentary evidence in which the plaintiff allegedly transferred his land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not cross check the statement of the plaintiff to prove the ownership of the property. Occupation of a suit land, such statement of the plaintiff shall be considered as fly-n.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
