Find a Lawyer

FAZAL KARIM versus ABDUL MANAF

Articles 44 and 42 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974, IX of 1908 (Article IX of 1908), Article 91 appealed to the Supreme Court Gift Appellant Plaintiff to file the cancellation of the gifted hanging in favor of his son. And on the basis of the variable adopted, the son then introduced another gift in favor of his wife. Both gift works were challenged on the ground that the Patwari of the area, for not providing possession, declared it invalid that there was no copy of the measles kidney in the record. On the occasion, the suit was not in accordance with the present position of the land and the entries in the Khasra Girwadi were not in the relevant years in the jambandi entries under which David Suit entered the possession of the land which the trial court and the district judge constituted. ? The opinion is that the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff appellant was banned by Article 91, Limitation Act, 1908, the High Court also agreed with the same view, the trial court and the first appeal The High Court cannot upset any conclusions of fact recorded by the Court, even if it is false, that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and refused to intervene in the case cannot be specifically ruled out by the following courts. When the High Court approved them and it was confirmed. patent advocate from Dadu lawyer