The provisions of section 42 and the 54 plaintiff's claim and perpetual injunction were that the property was lawful and that the alteration of the suit property was certified in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant's predecessor. The change of inheritance was affirmed, for a permanent injunction against his plaintiff for refusal of his title against the defendants on the basis of fraud, separation and disqualification, and to interfere with his possession. Also prayed. The plaintiff claimed that she occupied the suit land as a co-shareholder and obtained regular possession without interruption. Defendants' claim that the suit was heard by the trial court and the appellate court simultaneously after the purchase of the property in dispute over the sale of the land, and the defendants filed a review request, however, The original record of the change in sales was obtained but could not be submitted by the Department of Revenue. Claiming that the record was not available on the Kanongo Tehsil District, a district in the disputed sales mutation could not be found on the Konongo District or Kanongo Tehsil as accused of exploiting the unauthorized sale mutation, it was their duty to document it. Prove the authenticity of the claim, under which the plaintiff / original owner was deprived of his title. , But the defendant failed to do so when the plaintiff allegedly owned the disputed property and recorded the oral and documentary evidence that the suit had fully substantiated its title and ownership in connection with the property. Illegal sales mutation
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
