Section 42 of the Contract Act (72 of 1872 of IX), section 16, to declare that the plaintiff was the co-owner in possession of the disputed property because of the legal heir of his original cousin (woman) who was unlawful As the defendant had fought the case. The disputed property was moved due to a sale transaction, the trial appellate court's trial was dismissed in the trial case, the appeal also upheld the trial court's plaintiff's conclusions. There was no sale between the parties and all the parties. The matters were fraudulent and the fake claimants further claimed that since their original cousin was a scandalous woman, the modification approved by the Revenue Officer was not a title document and unless it proved to be a valid one. Until then the defendant had no rights. Neither the certifying officer nor the petitioner appeared in the court to testify that the sale was sufficient, ld that the mutation was not appropriate. The defendants had failed to prove the idea given to the expatriate woman. Also failed to prove that at the time of the approval of the change she was with the advice of those close to her and those who could fully explain her. The result of the beneficiary's work was bound to prove ??? The property sold through the mutation was considered which failed to prove to the defendants that the High Court had dismissed the request. \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
