Section & 42 & Q 54 Law Evidence (of 10 of 1984), Declaration of Sale Art of Title and Order Prohibition, Each Party Sues Evidence to Prove Failure to Prove Two Witnesses, Defendant's Foundation When the petitioner demanded the sale of the possession, both the courts respectively passed the verdict and issued a decree in favor of the respondents on the basis that the petitioner sought the petition. The documents and litigation filed were excluded where the contents of the document were presented to the executive, the ten The construction of the talisman is justified, but its contents cannot be proved only by the approval of the document through the process. Validate the sale process and cannot provide the sale with proof of contract confirmation The original owner of the suit property did not confirm that the pears were presented to the registrar at the time of the registration of the sale contract but to obtain their signatures. A commission was appointed for, and no sales were made to validate the commission, nor was any other evidence brought to the record to confirm the sales certificate. Likewise, it also raised doubts about the authenticity of the sale deed. The respondent was the beneficiary of the sale deed which failed to prove the document and both the courts have erroneously held that the petitioner had no intention of And about the sales process in question, because of the entry in the document. , There was no need for the respondents to prove the seller's contract. Both the courts below gave the review
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
