GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE, BOARD versus RASHID
The following courts have sued the plaintiff in favor of the plaintiff claiming that he is the owner of the land under which the plaintiffs, for the declaration of entries in the records of the Revenue and Articles 42 and 54 54, for the permanent injunction and for their correction, According to them, they were exchanged. The real estate, which his predecessor bought in interest, the plaintiff / provincial government did not deny the plaintiffs' title to the extent of the land property purchased by their predecessor, but according to the defendant's land in question. It was up to the plaintiffs to establish their title to the property in the name of the government plaintiff although he insisted on the execution of the sale process in favor of his property in relation to the property, but he was selling during Failed to present sales process. There was no evidence on record regarding the trial property and the underground land in favor of it, despite the plaintiffs saying the same, the trial court and the appellate courts relied on oral evidence and therefore presented the title of a party. It cannot be decided on such evidence that both the lower courts failed to properly interpret the evidence and the material, a result which was not in accordance with the law and the facts, based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff. Plaintiffs had failed to establish their title altogether, in the circumstances, in their pleading for relief. Qdar were not. And as they have been approved by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court petition, even though it was banned for more than three months, the unidentified orders are illegal because of a breach of the law and the facts.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
