13. On the other hand, the first Court of Appeal examined in detail the oral and documentary briefs and evidence that were recorded in the minutes by the parties concerned. It first considered whether or not Annex P6 had been exported by the parties. After the relevant evidence was posted, the first Court of Appeal found that the court was correct in concluding that Appendix P6 was mentioned by the parties who referred to it. Since this is a factual finding at the same time, there is no need for further examination. The High Court did not quash this finding of fact, as requested in the excerpts of its judgment reproduced above. The first court of appeal then considered whether the written document required registration. The High Court reproduced Part 16 of the judgment of the first Court of Appeal in its entirety. It should be noted that the first Court of Appeal denounced the oral and written submissions and evidence submitted by the non-parties in sandschrift and documentarschrift and found that the applicant had established the compromise (exposure CX) of 15.5.1992 between the applicant and defendants No.
2 and 3, namely Sohan Singh and Harjinder Kaur. Harjinder Kaur took the stand and recognized him. She also admitted running a family colony. Thus was the dispute between the successors of Harbans Singh (applicant) and the successor of Mohan Singh (initial defendant No. 1). The first Court of Appeal therefore accepted the applicant`s opinion that in 1970, after the purchase of land, the dispute between the parties on the lands of appeal and in this family transaction, the plaintiff was held as the owner of the property, including its constructions. In this context, the first Court of Appeal stated that, in the same case, the Supreme Court ruled that the reason for the recognition of such family comparisons was valid. He observed: – The call executed a family comparison contract in order to distribute the estate of the crook. On May 9, 1989, the applicants brought an action against Ms.