DR. ZIA-UR-REHMAN KHAN versus DR. ATIQ-UR-RAHMAN KHAN
O XX, Rr 13 & 18 ADMINISTRATION SUIT FOR DISTRIBUTION No evidence of any gift by the plaintiff's father has been made in favor of the respondent (s). Gift accessories were also clearly missing in the transaction. Just because respondents to the gift-giving claim of the baldness did the defense without proving or proving the nature of the transaction, the matter will not be separated from the jurisdiction and scope of the administration. , Which can be called a comprehensive suit, therefore, under the circumstances, there was no need to challenge the clear ownership of the property of the respondents available to the applicants for the relief of the declaration for the appellants. In family settlement and in vague terms, the parties acknowledge what the property was, which is part of the property by the deceased's father. Respondents originally submitted the documents themselves, respondents said that the document was executed for some reason, but did not preclude any independent evidence produced by it. Was an important and important contradiction. The change in the position stated in the written statement and his statement was in complete discretion with the respondents, the respondent was a highly educated person, thus when he admitted to accepting the settlement, he was taken into account. Could not accept. It is requested that he was not aware of the contents of the document, in addition to the statement that the document was signed the following month following his father's burial before boarding the plane and his requests Was against the view of the court
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
