The suit for the defendants' declaration and injunction under Articles 42 and 54 was that they owned 3/4 of the property they owned. The remaining 1 / 1th of it was owned by his close relatives and he said that two shareholders of 1/4 share had died uncontrollably, their share was deferred when the claimant had a close relative. Defendants deny plaintiff's claim and claim that the property claims. The names of the grandchildren of one of the said owners were found to have been altered and they were subverted by the defendants, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was simultaneously suspended by the two courts under which Waldetti Burden filed the defendants. But it was established that the two owners had lost 1/4 of the property in question, but could not establish why they failed to produce any particular evidence in this regard, and especially their He also failed to describe the relationship between the two victims and said that the relationship between the two deceased owners was in response to the question of the owners of the two victims. Could not produce any evidence to present to Trial C. We have disclosed that no admission was made after the names of the deceased who described their legal heirs below, in the circumstances, this decision was correct It was reported that the deceased owners of the property have died unconsciously because nothing can be brought to the contrary saying that the death of the deceased owners is about 100 to 100 years ago, but the alleged inheritance changes nonetheless. Was born, though nothing is said about those who, for example, are said to have been registered in the following courts. Uh, got it right
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
