For the specific performance of the contract, declaration and permanent mandate, the plaintiffs sued the plaintiffs for declaring that they were the owners of the suit land through a sale that last year. In favor of our customers. The plaintiff also prayed for a permanent mandatory injunction order which sought to prevent the defendants from interfering in the suit land, the plaintiff also specially for the plaintiff's cancellation of change of suit land and alterations. Prayed In their written statement, the appellant's defendants had acknowledged the facts of the sale in favor of the plaintiff, but denied the advance sale of the patwari constituency and kept the record on a daily diary, which clearly stated the sale I confirmed. In presenting a public document on behalf of the plaintiff by the witnesses who testified to it, the assumption of accuracy was attached to it once a document was exhibited and on record without reservation. If brought, then no objection can be raised in respect of his confession, in addition to the defendants' admission, the plaintiff had also caused substantial evidence on record to prove the sale transaction in his favor. Revenue authorities rejected the change in the suit land for no apparent reason and on the other hand filed a complaint with the seller. The change in favor of the plaintiff was confirmed and the plaintiff's intention to lose was not found in the land of the plaintiff no reliable and strong evidence that mutation of the suit in favor of the defendant was confirmed at the time of the indictment. That I was equipped with
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
