The defendants sued for property on the basis that the defendants had forcibly seized the disputed property and, with the consolidation of additional revenue, were able to show their cultivation on the disputed property. The plaintiff also sued for the declaration with the argument that the said property was purchased by the plaintiffs through an oral sale agreement and in the presence of four witnesses, the plaintiff was paid Rs. The trial was decided by the plaintiff's trial and the trial was settled by a strong verdict. He rejected the defendants filed. And the Appeal Court's order on appeal, three of the four defendants who were allegedly paid by the trial court to testify, three witnesses never appeared to support the defendant's version in the trial court. And a witness appeared and made a different statement. The record reveals that the change in the daily wakati was also recorded as a consideration price instead of Rs. 860,000 for Rs. 967,537. In fact, the witnesses only stated that the money was paid, which resulted in no real payment of the price. High Court refuses to interfere in finding consolidation of facts in appeal jurisdiction to declare execution of sale agreement unenforceable
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
