Plaintiffs' claim that Article Q 42 was a breach of statute (10 of 1984 1984), art 117 and 118 suits for sale, was of the view that the mutant was fraudulent, fraudulent, and that no suit was simultaneously justified. Along with the payment of the sale, valid certification was also made by a vendor of change, minor witnesses and revenue officials, including Patwari Circle, Tehsildar, and Minor Circle witnesses, suggesting that the transaction was settled properly. And the mutation was confirmed by a legally-certified officer. The allegation was proved by the plaintiff and cannot be disclosed merely on the allegation that it can be claimed that the beneficiary has to prove the situation that he will not forgive the plaintiff from the initial burden on him. Allegations of fraud. The entries in the mutation registrations, although not conclusive, but the evidence presented in support of them will be the same as eliminating the burden that the beneficiary may have on the plaintiff's counsel. The mere statement of resignation will not be sufficient to prove fraud. The plaintiff must plead fraud to the claim and this too should be proved by credible evidence which was not lacking in the present case. The plaintiff failed to prove the case. Was that both the courts below incorrectly scanned and evaluated the evidence on record. Detection that the courts below had suffered weakness and was accepted, which was revised awry in nature and decisions and orders
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
