Claimants of Articles 8, 42 and 54 of the suit claim, possession and permanent injunction claim that they are entitled to own their own property in the possession of their late father, who was the joint venture of the parties. Pray for occupancy through the distribution of. To prevent the separation of the defendants from the property and the permanent injunction, the property defendants argued on the basis that the defendants had no cause for action, since both the trial court and the appellate court decided the defendants. The defendants prosecute the verdict. The accuracy record proved that, other than the naked statement of the witness who strained the relationship with the defendants, no other strong, reliable and strong, oral or documentary evidence was available to prove that The deceased father of the parties purchased the suit property. From the record of his life time it was clear that the suit property CCLF acquired the defendants' property and not the inheritance of the common ancestors of the parties, the evidence below on the questions of the courts, the facts. And failed to properly interpret the law on the subject which was incorrectly allocated. The result of the wrong decisions allowed the request for review, the court results below were set aside and the lawsuit filed by the defendants was dismissed.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
