Sections 42 & 54 54 The Case for Declaration and Permanent Order The defendant challenged the change under which the plaintiff's father moved the suit land on the basis of the alleged sale, which was three days after the adoption of the mutation. According to the trial court's decision and decree that the gift was filed on a gift basis, the property was legally transferred and that the civil court has no right to adjudicate the matters relating to the revenue. Not a jurisdiction, the plaintiff claimed that the word "gift" was included externally. The defendant originally claimed that the property was purchased by the defendant's father. The validity appellate court erred in stating that the mutation was based on a gift and the civil court had no jurisdiction in the matter of revenue, in which neither party had pleaded in the trial court that the mutation was based. The appellate court's view that there was no jury of the civil court could not be accepted as an issue in the matter of taxation. Was granted and the case was remanded to appellate court on remand to properly examine the evidence on record. Accept \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
