Section 8 of the plaintiff's argument for possession of immovable property was that the defendants had built the house on the land that was owned by them, while the defendants claim that they had purchased the same from the plaintiff. Was dismissed by the trial court, but it was the same that ruled. Apart from the fact that the appellate court's construction of the concrete house was built on measles numbers, the plaintiff sold it to the defendants, the appellate court did not even consider the factor in which it was claimed by the plaintiff. It was claimed by the claimant. Prove that the entire area under the defendant's home was the one that the defendant allegedly possessed. Such an attack did not escape the defendant through convincing and reliable evidence that the plaintiff sold his entire land. The plaintiff was obliged to prove that his case showed that he was the owner in the joint account to some extent and after the sale, he still had a substantial share in the said portion, the defendants had purchased the suit area and It was built with other people on it, roads and roads were on the land and it was difficult to prevent the crossing and The majority of the defendants' possession was actually from the plaintiff's decision and the appellate court's decision was not based on the correct definition of the evidence, which was accepted by the review, and the appellate court's decision and order was reversed and the trial court's decision retained. And the case was dropped.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
