Articles & 54 and declaration 54 of the Case for Declaration and Permanent Order of Defamation Claimant claimed that he was the owner of the suit property and the defendants had no recourse to the trial court's exclusion from the trial court, but the trial court The appellate judgment was set aside by the appellant. The court's pedigree table in the plaintiff upheld the defendants' claim that is not disputed by the defendants. Masil e Facts and other documents presented in the record have also supported the plaintiffs, the defendants failed to produce any documentary or oral evidence to show this property, in each of their pledges, in their names. The plaintiffs were conveyed in exchange for the converted property, only by the defendants claiming that they had long been the owner of the suit property, having lost their ownership through the plaintiff's prescription; Was not proven. In the circumstances, the suit in favor of the defendants was the property of the property and the transfer of its part and still illegal, the request to amend the evidence or misinterpretation or non-reading of the material was illegal.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
