Articles 2 (d), 6 and 13 of the Contempt of Evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 117, 118 and 129 (g), suit for pre-arrest transaction, whether suit for proof of advance guarantee filed by the plaintiff against the plaintiff In the sale or gift case it is alleged that the defendant actually purchased the suit property for Rs. 8000, but the sale transaction was given a change in gift. The defendant was that the transaction in question was a gift change. And none of the legal heirs of the property donors questioned the authenticity of the gift change plaintiff had specifically alleged that the owner of the suit land sold the same In this case the plaintiff was sold and the plaintiff was notified. In connection with the sale transaction, an informant asked Ounce to prove that the plaintiff required under Arts 117 and 118 of the Martyrdom of 1984 was too much of a charge and not the defendant to take advantage of the gift transaction. The principle which the beneficiary of the gift also has to prove is that in this case the plaintiff / pre-emptor failed to deal with the burden of proof to prove that the money was exchanged and the sale case in both cases under consideration. Was not and is not a gift, having properly reviewed the evidence, the plaintiffs of both the courts had rightly rejected the right to argue, c. Neither read nor false evidence had to be read and not face any scope of error. Do not interfere with the High Court's amending jurisdiction
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
