Section 44 law evidence (10 of 1984 1984), Arts 17 and Su 79 permanent injunction suit for sale, the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the suit property by hanging the defendant and interfere with his possession against the defendants. Called for a permanent injunction from The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in their favor by the trial property owner, but the lower appellate court modified the legality of the judgment in the defendants. One of the questions was a modest sales witness who really bored the act. The impression of his thumb, as well as the impression of the thumb of the second margin witness and the signing of the suit property owner, was established by the statements of two witnesses executing the sale process in favor of the defendants that the defendants had signed a property sale agreement. Based on After proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the court resolved the equitable dispute in the light of the trial court's modification results and the use of the amended jurisdiction to keep the defendants as owners of the suit property. I refused to intervene in the decision and the order passed by the lower appellate court was dismissed.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
