Pursuant to Sections 8 and 42, the plaintiff's owner sued the defendants for sharing and acquiring property left over by his father, who was still living with his father after the marriage and the original possession of the property left by the father. The other daughters of the deceased, including the plaintiff and claiming exclusive ownership of the claimant, were sued by the plaintiff for their share in the property, which was stayed by the trial court after the trial. And the appellate court's defendants claimed to have removed the plaintiff on a gift-based inheritance. In favor of his father at the time of life, but at the time of recording his statements, he turned his gift request into a dormitory, claiming that he died in 1997, under the parents of the parishioners, 98 and at that time. Islamic law was dominant in this area, and the father of the parties was the owner of the property in connection with the death, and after his death his property passed on to the legal heirs and it was joint property until a strong and The popular plea should not be contrary to Islamic law, ie gift, customs or the sale of property by the father during his lifetime. However, the plaintiffs' legal heirs were the defendant's father in his written statement against the gift petition, failing to prove the custody of the detainee under customs until the superior courts to prove such customs. Gifts were requested up to the standard set by, which violated Islamic law of inheritance and the orders of the following courts were maintained
