Articles 8 and 42 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 120 suit declaration and sale by favor of the plaintiff for the possession of the defendant alleges that such authority is for lease and the suit property Not for sale. On 31 3 1968, while the case was filed on idity 3 1986 in the case filed in idity 3 1986, it did not state the date of the death of two of the witnesses of the plaintiff before the plaintiff's predecessor died in 1971. in I was dead and found out about this plaintiff. A year after his predecessor's death, his deviation will be bound by the statements of his own witnesses when the evidence taken by the defendant that his father died in 1967, confirming the suit mutation system. Prior to that, he was conflicting with his own statements. The plaintiff's witnesses, despite knowing about the suit mutation, established the case in 1986, meaning that 18 years after its confirmation, the plaintiff's predecessor did not challenge the plaintiff's replacement by examining the deputy prosecutor. And the mutation witnesses proved the signature of the plaintiff's predecessor, which the plaintiff failed to prove the mutation illegal and collective, and his death had been confirmed before his prediction. n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
