Section 42 According to the Shariah claim made by the first daughter (the plaintiff), the case for claiming the inheritance of the father was claimed by the plaintiff's sister and sister (first and second respondent). Each of them had cash. In 1980, by a jury verdict; and the second defendant acknowledged receipt of such acquisition by himself and the plaintiff through a contract of 27 2 1998, the trial court rejected the appellate court. According to the first respondent, the alleged jirga decision was not diminished, in writing, it was obliged to prove that the jirga was convened to resolve the issue of such inheritance and that each The legal heritage has got its fair share, which according to the jirga's decision, it was implemented after the second defendant filed the case. The 1997 agreement was not binding on the plaintiff because it was neither a party to it nor marked in the thumb, nor was it available by the other defendant at the time of its execution. The statement itself was not examined as a witness in support of the statement and the plaintiff denied such presence at the time of the jirga, according to defendant \ A witness, such cash payment was made only by the plaintiff and other defendants. Both were made after the juror's verdict, while according to their second witness, the defendants' share was paid in installments. Or had failed to prove payment of cash because their share of the inheritance through the courts that result in incorrect reading and non-reading
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
