Articles 9, 42 and 55 of the Suit for Declaration, Mason's Profit, Occupation and Compulsory Order Defendant claim that the plaintiff's half-brother was with the suit property until his death, who also owned a book binding business on the property. The mortgagee, after his death, entered into the property to claim the tenancy rights, with the consent of his sons. That she was neither resident in the property nor engaged in business with her brother and had filed a contentious rent lawsuit against the defendant in order to hide her error in which it was claimed. That she is the sister of her deceased brother. / The tenant became the tenant of the claimant in accordance with the law of inheritance and the wrongdoing was declared wrong. Failure to prove tenancy / Defendant The plaintiff testified against his claim by presenting evidence, but the appellant's right to present evidence was discontinued after several occasions were confirmed. The trial court ruled in the case and the appellate court affirmed the same justification, saying that nothing was available to show that the verdict given by the courts was against the law or the power of any law. Failure to use or determine the problem was the result. Defendant failed to include his evidence in law or use case and failed to prove his claim to defendant yesterday failed to corroborate the credibility of the defendant's witnesses for plaintiff's claim There was substantial evidence of the absence of a refusal by the plaintiff in the suit property to be a crime because it was without the consent of the landlord
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2015
