Sections 42 and 54 of the Civil Code (v. 1908), declaration and injunction of the suit 115 were dismissed by the trial court, but the appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's ruling and injunction. The plaintiff claimed that the land was allotted to the defendant in the dispute and he subsequently purchased it because the land in dispute in the dispute was owned by the government which was allotted in favor of the defendant in 1983. But the plaintiff was completely silent in this matter. Revealed that nothing about the rights of the leasehold was mentioned in it, nor was there any reference to the allotment order / lease issued in favor of the defendant / seller in 1983 There is no explanation for the fact that when it was allegedly sold in 1992. The plaintiff's land was the state land at that time, and without the approval of the competent authority, no legal document could be given to the third party. Claiming ownership over a defined land, which was not available on the site of the plaintiff, failed to prove that any legitimate title in relation to the suit land was transferred in his favor, In her absence, she needed to prove it. No reasonable title, the plaintiff did not deserve any relief claimed by him, the appellate court had properly evaluated the evidence and came to the correct conclusion that the plaintiff had completely failed to file a case in his favor, There was no basis for my intervention. The appellate court below ordered the disapproval order
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
