The plaintiff in the Section 42 Declaration Gift case alleges that the gift process in favor of the defendants is the result of fraud and fraud. Confession of fraud or fraud was not sufficient, the plaintiff must be specific (in their agreement) the suit property was accepted with the defendants but the plaintiff did not take possession because the resulting benefit document restriction Was imposed but has been accused of allegedly transferring to another party (s) who have been accused of fraud or forgery, which approved unconstitutional changes 35 years and 27 years later. The suit was not banned. The donor and the plaintiff (mother-in-law) survived long after the plaintiff's gift mutation, but none of them challenged the mutation in favor of the defendant. It is imperative for the plaintiffs to commit fraud unless it is proven that long-term entries in the revenue record are likely to be valid until proven that the defendants have been occupying the suit for four decades. If so, this could not be temporarily concluded.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
