The suit, 42, 53, declaration 54 and Su 55 suits for declaration and injunction sought to prevent the plaintiff from interfering with the plaintiff's suit to occupy the land that the payment of the sale price. After the alteration, the possession of the suit land was handed over to them. Legally effective, but the defendant demolished the wall erected by them, saying it caused a loss of Rs 500,000. The plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property and the plaintiff was not manageable for the non-joiner of the person with whom the defendant entered. In an agreement to sell the suit property for Rs 1650,000, it was stated that the person had paid the defendant Rs 200,000 while the balance was agreed to be paid when the person paid the third. The person / party was successful in selling the property. / Someone else said that the person changed the property in favor of the claimant after receiving the money. The defendant further claimed that he had been cheated. He said that the person who entered into a fraudulent contract with the plaintiffs was responsible for dismissing the case, however, in the case, the damages worth Rs one lakh were justified. In the possession of the suit property, the burden of proof, therefore, was on the defendants to prove their title to the disputed property, and the safeguard against the defendant's claim was that it was said that the individual had sold the property with the consent of the plaintiff, Said that the person did not appear in court. Controversy over title and party title of any party remains controversial
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
