Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ANWAR versus SARDAR KHAN

Before the Special Relief Act 1877 Section 8 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), section 115 for the occupied suit, the defendants asserted that they were seizing the land in dispute in their capacity. And either the plaintiffs were not paying any rent offered to the predecessor or the plaintiffs also claimed that they had acquired ownership rights in relation to the land in dispute because they had owned the property for some time. I was Over 30 years, the property revenue record shows that the land was the predecessor of the plaintiffs and the predecessor was in the interest of the defendants. After the death of the plaintiff, the suit land was changed in the name of the defendants but they are the legal heirs of the deceased owner but are in the interest of the defendants and after that, the defendants themselves have at any time inherited changes. Did not object to the plaintiff's prior approval of the suit occupying the plaintiff, the plaintiff's possession of the suit land, Yes, it was a permit that defeated the defendants' property claim and paid the rent or the settlement by the defendants would not mean that the defendants became owners because of the negative possession because the suit was on the land. Their occupation was valid from the beginning immigration advocates email from Chacklala lawyer