Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF versus NASEEM AKHTAR

The plaintiffs in Section 42 sought a declaration for the impression that they were the property owners because of the legal heir of the deceased owner. And the defendants did not have any concern with it and it has been alleged that Tamalak was bound to cancel the charges in favor of the accused on the basis of forgery, fake, forgery and collusion, and that alleged power off. The attorney, and the change was also illegal and had no effect. Defendants resisted the lawsuit on their rights on the grounds that the suit land was gifted to them by their predecessor as a gift gifted in interest, which allegedly held the legal sanctity of the gift covenant. The defendant was a minor witness; he admitted during his cross examination that when he was not present, the Tamil / Gift process was done in the interest of the parties through the foregoing. And did not even know who had the disputed property at this time to prove the legitimate gift; the defendants were obliged to prove the three advance goods of legitimate gift advance, offer, acceptance and delivery. No clear evidence was available on the record of the above factors. The following courts correctly rejected the claim filed by the plaintiffs, under which the finding of both the courts was in accordance with the evidence presented by the parties and it was correctly held that the defendants had failed. Prove the execution of the legitimate Tamalek in their favor, in the absence of any misrepresentation of these two courts or in the absence of reading their evidence when there is no judicial error, the High Core in the affirmation. jobs for advocates from Fateh Pur lawyer