The Plaintiff & Pla 13 filed a lawsuit for possession by disturbance because the disputed property was sold at a price of Rs 2 lakh but to deprive the plaintiff of the right, the aforesaid "sale" Shown as "Exchange / Respondent." The plaintiff refused to prosecute and denied the trial. On appeal, the appellate court dismissed the same truth. One property was urban property and the other was agricultural records that revealed that the two sides had exchanged and enjoyed possession of the aforesaid property. From the date of the affirmation of conversion the plaintiff had failed to produce any evidence which shows that in the fundamental agreement of "exchange of", the mutant had to defeat the plaintiff's pre-emptive right, where the civil property was No testimony was presented from. The value of the property transferred was shown. The oral claim was not sufficient to substantiate the fact that in the absence of evidence that the vacancy was already sold, the question of the plaintiffs first became a matter of law in the lower courts when it passed two decisions. The petition was dismissed by the High Court. General Chat Chat Lounge r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
