Sections 42 & 54 of the 54 plaintiffs sued on the basis that the deceased was allotted a controversial land under the Cooperative Farming Scheme in 1958 and implemented the controversial Power of Attorney in favor of the defendants. And thereafter a lawsuit was filed for the separation of the said property. The lawyer was with the victim's intention and without the victim's direction and fought the lawsuit against the defendant for sale and alleged alteration, and also filed a lawsuit against the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction in connection with the disputed property. Filed, both cases were settled by the trial court dispute The plaintiffs raised the question of whether the power of attorney was executed in response to the question of transfer of the disputed property while the alleged sale was made. Was not covered. The trial court's finding of legitimate sale work was implemented was that the deceased and the plaintiff's consent could not refute such evidence as it was late at the time of sale, neither residing with the claimant nor Nor was it established by evidence that the aforesaid transaction had any intention of attacking. The approval of the written statement before the evidence of the trial and the documentary evidence on the record revealed that the appellate court had correctly ruled that the High Court refused to interfere with the amended jurisdiction, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
