Articles 8, 42 and 54 of the Proof of Evidence, Proclamation and Order for Prohibition have not been documented The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the suit property and requested that the gift in favor of the defendant be a forged and forged document. The trial was partially heard by the trial court. The lawsuit in favor of the plaintiff, he owns half of the suit property but the lower appellate court set aside the trial court's finding and the trial proceeded in favor of Modi to the full extent of the property. The claim of the plaintiff in the name of the plaintiff by the registered sale deed was not presented in the same evidence and this nature was not seriously reversed by the defendant and the matter was proved to be an anonymous transaction and the parties did not. Dad had considered selling which was not even true. The nature of the bargaining was fully established by the plaintiff and the anonymous then the plaintiff was signed and executed. Under the two agreements, half the protein of the suit property was filed and the contents of both agreements. Cannot be denied or denied because no person can approve the sale process nor have any documents been presented in favor of the claimant. Was not part of the judicial record; its judicial notice could not be taken to the lower appellate court without properly appreciating the evidence on the record; the sale process in favor of the plaintiff was controversially considered because the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court rejected the judgment and order after the High Court had placed the jurisdiction over the case, which failed to properly define the nature.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
