Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 4 . contrary to the settled law declared by this Court from time to time in its various pronouncements noted above. It was therefore unsustainable. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has vigorously defended the impugned judgment. He submits that the original allegations of the Appellant were based upon misunderstanding of the property documents of Respondent No.1. He maintains that the only ground urged by the Appellant before the Election Tribunal was that Respondent No.1 just disclosed 61 acres of agricultural land in Deh Khedkar, District Larkana whereas he owns 140.24½ acres of land in the said Deh. In this regard, the learned counsel submits that Respondent No.1 in his nomination papers disclosed 61 acres of agricultural land in Deh Khedkar, District Larkana, 622 acres in Deh Raju Dero, District Khairpur and one Otaq/Bethak in Mohallah Waleed, Larkana. With great vehemence, the learned ASC submits that the explanation of Respondent No.1 for not mentioning the remaining portion out of 140.24½ acres of land admittedly recorded in his name in the relevant revenue records was that a part of the remaining land approximately 16 acres had been acquired by the Government of Sindh whereas the rest was (although nominally in his name or in the name of his minor children) actually is in the beneficial ownership, control and possession of his father. The learned counsel contends that Respondent No.1 had correctly declared the full extent of all immovable properties that are