Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD FAZAL versus KAURA

Proof of pre-discrimination right of pre-emption of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act, 1913, because of pre-emptive participation in the vacant land, the trial court and the appellate court had formally ruled and ordered the following courts The note was issued. However, the High Court, the trial court and the appellate court, reversed the evidence after discussing the evidence on the record that the seller could not prove his tenancy on any part of the suit, while the Revenue Record owned the former umpire's co-ownership. Was supported. It was submitted that the shopkeeper was a tenant under him and the seller did not deny the joint ownership of the pre-importer in his statement to the court, therefore, no justification can be offered, therefore, The High Court was present in the High Court in order to circumvent the conclusions of the two courts in respect of the superior right in advance. Importer online advocate from Daur lawyer