MST. MUMTAZ GULSHAN versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DOR, SARGODHA
The plaintiff, who sought the findings of fact adjacent to the limitation of the declaration of the Su42 case, had two courts demanding the sale of the land in favor of the defendants on the request that she was the daughter of the former owner of the suit and her KK's brother had lost his share. The land was allotted against her father's claim in inheritance and she did not deny her brother's right in respect of the allotment of land against the claims, therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove his case, the plaintiff's brother's The consent filed by him did not strengthen his case. The plaintiff, on the contrary, showed that the suede land of the two parties was sold by the registered sale act in 1963 and 1965, which the plaintiff's brother had accepted and had given them possession, and the plaintiff also proved it. Failed to claim that the land was actually allotted against his claim. After the stipulated period, the father and the case were filed with an unknown delay. Plaintiff also failed to show that the allotment was fraudulent in favor of his brother, therefore, the purchase of the suit land by the defendants was valid. The seller did not have to prove the seller's request; the landlord owned the record at the time of sale. The following two courts were unable to shed light on any material irregularities or weaknesses and misinterpretation or non-reading of evidence, while recording unilateral searches of the facts of the High Court in the case of the use of the amended jurisdiction. We refuse to interfere with decisions passed by. The following review was rejected in circumstances:
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
