Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF MIRZA versus SAMIULLAH

Section 42 Anonymous Transaction Evidence The plaintiff alleges that it was not owned by his father and in fact he is the beneficial owner of the same judgment, and the trial court passed the decree passed in favor of the plaintiff, respectively. Was set aside by the appellate court and the High. The court's legal position failed to explain why it purchased the property as a fictitious transaction. There was no firm evidence from the plaintiff that the plaintiff's settlement reflects the payment of the disputed property by the plaintiff. Permanent relocation process; approval of site plan in favor of respondent. And the plaintiff failed to indicate that the plaintiff relinquished the suit property to read any misrepresentation or evidence which could have led the court to interfere with the finding of the facts and approved by the High Court. The order was according to the weight of the evidence. Refused to interfere with the decision and the High Court of Appeal's decree passed

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2010

• TARIQ AZIZ v. MUHAMMAD IRSHAD 2010 SCMR 160
• MURREE BREWERY COMPANY LIMITED v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), CUSTOMS HOUSE KARACHI 2010 SCMR 164
• MUHAMMAD FARYAD v. State 2010 SCMR 166
• FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment Division v. SHAHID HAYAT 2010 SCMR 169
• ZAIN-UL-AB EDEEN v. State 2010 SCMR 175
• Raja FAZAL-UR-REHMAN v. MUHAMMAD AFZAL 2010 SCMR 179
• MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR v. State 2010 SCMR 182
• ABDUL ZAHIR v. JAFFAR KHAN 2010 SCMR 189

All Supreme Court judgments of 2010 →

property advocates from Adda Jahan Khan lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes