Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASLAM versus MUHAMMAD JAVED

Section 8 Oral evidence in the presence of documentary evidence The scope of the document's evidence was that they were the owners of the disputed premises suit was simultaneously decided upon by the defendants of the agreement for any sale agreement, payment receipt or any documentary evidence. Failed to present. Defendants presented documentary evidence regarding their ownership in the suit premises to prove that no witnesses to the sale were presented, and to prove that the plaintiff's property was sold to them. While the defendant's claim was based on an oral claim, the claim did not matter in the presence of documentary evidence. Cannot retain claim for title to property in possession. Legal rights are not equal to defense NTS has no locus standi in relation to its claims and their possession of the suit property was illegal. Illegal orders did not indicate any illegal interference or weakness unless the current results recorded by the courts below could be disturbed unless contrary to the evidence on record. In the circumstances the appeal was dismissed

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014

• MUHAMMAD ALI ABBAS v. Syed HASSAN RAZA RIZVI 2014 CLC 1006
• MUHAMMAD SHAHID SIDDIQUI v. MUHAMMAD MANZAR ALAM QADRI 2014 CLD 1010
• AL AMNA INTERNATIONAL v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary/Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue 2014 PTD 1011
• Prof. Dr. MASOOD HAMEED KHAN v. GOVERNOR OF SINDH through Principal Secretary 2014 PLC(CS) 1014
• ANJUM REHMAT v. Sheikh GHULAM SADIQ 2014 CLC 1019
• JUMA KHAN alias SAJID v. State 2014 YLR 1019
• UMED ALI v. State 2014 YLR 1028
• ISRAR AHMED v. Mst. PUKHRAJ AHAD 2014 CLC 1029

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2014 →

power of attorney advocate Kotli Loharan lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes