According to the Section 42 Declaration, the parentage-proof scope plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in 1985 to benefit from the fact that their foreclosure was left behind by the plaintiff on April 22, 1984, the sole legal and legal heirs who own the land. He was the son of the defendant and was Rajput by caste, while the plaintiff was from the caste and the plaintiff had no claim to the disputed land. The trial court filed the claim of the plaintiff which was filed by the appellate court. Deleted. The following was only dealt with in the case of a legal heir and the defendant did not consider the documentary evidence presented in his original context and mistakenly ignored the documentary evidence on the oral evidence, admission school record, school leaving certificate And relied on the registrar hal Wm Than instead of Makhl and Kharj gave birth to the plaintiff's mother \ The defendants created a sibling brother, the defendant's mother to support his claim that he never `Wm with Neither married nor was the son of the defendant `WM of ', but he unanimously proved that the defendant was H MH with seven. The fact that the defendant's mother was born to the marriage, the mother fled and went to `RYK to and contracted with Nika and the defendant was born where the school admission form, the second record and the mutation itself` MH. the and measles entered with defendant's parents through a defendant who was never challenged. Based on the plaintiff's and Jambundi's view that was prepared, when the court had approved the change of a lease by the accused along with the parentage, the application for review was dismissed.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
