MIRZA MUHAMMAD INAYAT SARAF versus MST. NASIM AKHTAR
Article 42 Partition Act (IV 1893), Article 4 law evidence (10 of 1984), constitution of Arts 114 and 140 of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) declaration of title Estoppel, the principle of enforcement of previous suit effect joint property. Distribution. The plaintiff claimed to be one of the co-owners of the disputed house, claiming that it was purchased by his father and demanded the same distribution; the owners of the company paid a registered gift for the house, which he owned Was later sold. The House, in favor of the registered sale deed against the defendant, dismissed the case and appeal filed by the plaintiff along with the trial court as well as the lower appellate court, but the High Court in the jurisdiction of the review The lawsuit was dismissed in favor of the plaintiff and the preliminary injunction for the distribution of the property record by property was passed through a copy of the previous claimant, which was entered and signed by the co-owner, the landlord of the disputed land. As a gift to your father, in recognition of his master's admission, which documents Was confronted by them, he could not be allowed to make any confession that he had withdrawn the admission. The High Court correctly concluded that there was no evidence on record to show that the co-owner either purchased or transferred any part of the property to his mother. And the decision and the legal strategy adopted by the High Court did not face weakness, but it reformed the decisions and orders passed by the two courts below, as both go against the evidence on record, HK
