The section 42 suit filed for the plaintiff's scope of burden on which he purchased the suit property through mutation by the defendants and at the same time the accused was dismissed. And did not give him any title, rights or honor. The burden of interest falls on the party who sought to establish the fact of transferring the property in his favor, but the record of rights was not a tool of title but unless the fact was denied, the defendant as the owner. The tax was not entered into the record on the basis of the vendors' possession of the suit land, nor did the shopkeeper nor the minor witnesses sign it or affect the thumb nor consider the sale. There are material contradictions in the evidence of the defendants in connection with the payment of. In connection with the dispute of consent, sale, default consideration as well as the sale and consideration of facts, the findings obtained by the courts below have not been substantiated that the amendment by the High Court HC Jurisdictional interference cannot be bothered with the factual findings through re-examination of the evidence. Evidence was misrepresented or unreadable was brought to the record Plaintiffs failed to suggest that the courts below drew wrong conclusions from the evidence. The two courts below correctly dismissed the case reviewed. The request was removed
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
