Sections 42 and 54 of the Declaration and Permanent Order of Discontinuance suit were eventually claimed by the trial and appellate court plaintiffs that they were the owners of the suit property and it was alleged that the defendants were converted into certified sales. Wrong, factual, without any jurisdiction over the rights of the plaintiff; authority and ineffective, although they presented numerous testimony in the evidence of their claim, but no evidence was available in favor of the defendants to alter the sale of the dispute. was not. And while the plaintiff did not sell the property to the plaintiffs, even the witnesses presented by the plaintiff could not say whether the change in the sale was affirmed or whether the plaintiff's special counsel was one of the plaintiffs. There was one, who also admitted the matter. For the past 55 years the property was in the possession of the defendants and it is still in the possession of the defendants' legal heritage. Such admission was contrary to the refusal of the defendant and the claim of the plaintiff that he was the owner of the suit property. The plaintiffs / witnesses stated that the forgery was affirmed in connection with the sale change and that the suit property was not sold by the defendants. The defendants had presented evidence in support of the claim that the mutation had entered and that the defendants, in these circumstances, were relieved, in fact, that they had the burden of proving that they had made any reasonable change in the dispute with the plaintiff. Source purchased property No f Print or illegal action was established by the plaintiffs in confirmation of the change in dispute Defendants' suit was rightly rejected by both courts In the absence of any illegal interference, the intervention justified Present
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
