Articles 39 and 42 of the Contract Act (IX of 1872), Articles 214 and 215 of the Convention of Evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 17, 79 and 140 suits executed by the General Power of Attorney, Plaintiff, for the declaration and cancellation of the gift The plaintiff claimed in favor of her son and nephew for the gift of the plaintiff for the sale of the suit land, claiming that the plaintiff had obtained the entire sale price after the plaintiff received the full sale price. Was sold and in return was hanged to the General Power of Attorney-proof plaintiff. The cross-examination was not contested, expressing ignorance of the sale agreement, and the minor witnesses presented by the defendant on its signatures did not confirm the signatures of the agreement, nor were they presented. In the absence of such an agreement, there would be no clear cost. The law was legally obliged to comply with the provisions of Arts 17, 79 and 140 of 1984 to obtain the consent and consent of the plaintiff before transferring the case to L. And for his close relatives a legitimate gift could be given only if the donor had the approval and consent of the gifted property with the specific mention of the names of the relatives, and all such necessary details would be present. The case was lacking. They can neither be guided nor considered to prove that the parties intend to do different things for obvious reasons. Oral evidence cannot be admitted nor can it be considered that the parties, the General Power of Attorney and the act of giving, mean that the plaintiff intends to influence the sale in favor of the plaintiff. Suit
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
