ASIATIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. versus PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, FAISALABAD
The trial court upheld the plaintiff's claim of easement by the plaintiff on section 15 of Public Utilities Act 1882, while the appellate court dismissed such findings, dismissing the case in which documents and oral evidence were available. There is evidence that the existence and use of a public road will prove fruitful. Question: The appellate court acted illegally by neglecting such evidence and recording its results primarily in relation to various jambandis of land connected to the road, especially by placing too much emphasis on square numbers. ? And the admissibility of the evidence, and their authenticity was substantiated by the plaintiff's witnesses, so there is no reason not to consider their identity value, however, the admissibility of the documentary evidence presented by the defendants. No objection was raised from the defendants for, the trial court properly concluded. The question is whether the public road is being used as such for twenty years and the existence of the road was also acknowledged by the defendant's witnesses, the trial court inspected the scene and found it. That the public citizen was using the road / public road used by the plaintiff by exercise, the right of section 15 of the Right to Freedom Act, 1882, softened for more than twenty years even though the private road. The easement is considered by the property owner for the beneficial enjoyment of the property owned by another person, Have gathered in Umm. There was enough evidence of someone else's property to record it
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
