The pre-empire lawsuit 46, 14 and 24 had previously claimed that the seller had done the sale in connection with the gift estate, the trial court and the appellate court had joint decisions and orders from both courts. Was kept separate. In the present case, the alleged plaintiff's father purchased the suit from the donor's father through the seller's son, filing a pre-arrest lawsuit that was ruled in favor of him after he entered. In the rights record, his name was confirmed in favor of the donor, who, on the next day, transferred the same party to the same party through a gift, against which he had already owned the property. The donor courts below recorded factual disputes as well as controversial discoveries in connection with this point that perpetual transactions were merely a sale in the gift decree, prior to that. Nine right could be defeated. Existing facts could not be separated by the High Court, even if a different view was possible even after re-examining the evidence, it could not be interfered with the exact finding of the facts recorded by the courts below, Of false advertising. Or in the judgment of the High Court appearing in the face of an unreadable record, the following courts did not disclose any misunderstanding or misunderstanding or error, while recording the judgment and decree in favor of the former umpire. The High Court did not cite any valid reason. To interfere with the decisions and orders given by the following courts when judging
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2013
