In section 8, the two courts in the possession case ruled that the plaintiffs had legally filed the title in the tax records, in which the number of questions is self-evident on the record. First, that according to the relief claimed under the purpose of trial and jurisdiction, the trial court did not make any case on the objection to non-payment of judicial fees, before making a significant decision on the issue of public property. That should have been considered. Second, the contention is that, on the point of ownership of the suit land, it was clear that the defendants had brought oral evidence in support of their application in the written statement, and that was sufficient to disprove the claim. Whether or not this is currently not required to be stated by the plaintiffs, however, on the evidence of suit land ownership, such evidence should have been discussed by the courts below, which was not the case. ? Third, oral testimony claimed that defendants had been in possession of the suit since the division of the suit, and fourthly, the exchange was recorded by the owner of the disputed land for a month and a half. In the very good years before he died, the effect of these facts and the question of fraud, which was part of the integrity of the plaintiff's transaction, was not considered by the lower courts. To conclude, consider and analyze the evidence on record, the trial court had the right to adjudicate the facts and law matters needed to resolve the dispute between the parties. And the real conflict
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
