Find a Lawyer

MEHMOOD AHMAD versus FAKHAR-UZ-ZAMAN

The plaintiff, who was the defendant's father, filed a declaration and permanent injunction against his son, under the provisions of Articles 42 and 54, and the permanent injunction was between the father and the son. One of them has cheated him and because of this he has deprived him of agricultural land. The alleged oral gift was claimed by the plaintiff, who was the owner of the property in question and gifted to the defendants on the basis of the oral gift suit filed by the plaintiff, which was filed by the trial and appellate court. Was excluded by copies. Controversial changes and measles charges revealed that the defendants were in possession of the property in the dispute and that their names were included in the affidavit to confirm the conversion on the basis of oral gift as the plaintiff admitted to the plaintiff In their statement that they negotiated with the defendants in their free consent, however, it claimed that the verification of the variations was based solely on obtaining a loan from the bank on the basis of the property transferred to their names. Was intended to facilitate the defendants and to take the stand that it committed fraud If the plaintiff's position could have been effective it could not be accepted because from his statement and his testimony, it can be inferred that the family dispute was between the plaintiff and one of the defendants, which was recorded by the courts. What was argued well cannot be interfered with, especially when there was an amended jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC of the High Court. immigration advocate from Dijkot lawyer