Find a Lawyer

KHALIQDAD KHAN versus MST. ZEENAT KHATOON

Section 42 Suitable Land Gift For Suitable Land Gifts By Four Sons (Defendants) The Defendant's Father Has Accused That His Daughters (Plaintiffs) Have Deleted Them The proof of the transaction must be on the beneficiary's proof that establishing it was not the use of the donor's mental thinking nor was it shown to influence or deceive the beneficiary of the change. The duty was to prove according to accepted principles and in accordance with the Conan martyrdom by presenting evidence in 1984; Not all advertising suspects were present at the time of the raid but nothing was available to confirm why another person received less property than the deceased donor was 90 years old (relative of both parties). According to his statement only, he found that the deceased daughters had been deprived of their share. Such a statement cannot be made by the lumberman as proof that the late had given a gift only in favor of his sons and not the suit of the daughters. Was given the verdict in the circumstances

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2010

• AMANULLAH SHAH v. SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF SINDH 2010 PLC(CS) 1350
• KHAN MUHAMMAD v. MUHAMMAD DIN 2010 SCMR 1351
• MUHAMMAD SAEE v. Mst. SHARAF ELAHI 2010 SCMR 1358
• Haji LIBAS KHAN v. Mst. NASEEM AKHTAR 2010 SCMR 1362
• MANZOOR HUSSAIN v. SHAHADAT KHAN 2010 SCMR 1375
• Syed KAMAL SHAH v. GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary 2010 SCMR 1377
• STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN v. Syed HASSAN ALI SHAH 2010 SCMR 1381
• ANWAR-UL-HAQ v. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD 2010 SCMR 1386

All Supreme Court judgments of 2010 →

top advocates from Talamba lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes