In section Q 42 of the Law of Martyrdom (1984, of 1984), the plaintiff claimed for proof of the execution of section 79 that his father-in-law had given him the property in lieu of strings and said that The trial court had partially ruled out the change in inheritance, but the appellate court rejected the agricultural land of 8 kanals and 1 marl and the construction property of 1 kanal was separated by its cousin in favor of the plaintiff in exchange for Dover One. ? The transfer of the canal land had already been transferred in favor of his wife, the plaintiff contending that the decree was not entitled to the extent that the transfer of property to Dover should be considered as a gift and a document showing such documents. Does not need to be registered. If the property is transferred by the father in favor of the daughter-in-law to the daughter-in-law, proof of the ownership of the property is required while the teacher's statement can be considered state. Minor testimony for proof of the execution of the documents If one of them, in addition to the minor witness, appeared before the trial court and suspended that the agreement was written by him and the defendants kept the impression of the thumb not only the author He had denied the two witnesses. The three also appeared in court and were dismissed in favor of the document in the present case, complying with the appellate court's requirement of Article 79 of the Law Evidence, 1984, which failed to affect the proper definition of the material available on file. Was. Do not read material evidence and misread it which results in misunderstanding of justice. The appeal was a continuation of the sphere and all material should be properly thrown upon which the appellant decided.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
