Wendy acquired an interest in this suit property before being sold as a payee under the patename in respect of Section 5 rights of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1991 and was not a tenant under any legal provision but both courts There was a mistake in misrepresenting the documentary evidence and ignoring the relevant piece of oral evidence, it was concluded that the tenant had taken possession of the land as a tenant, in review, because of wrongdoing. It was permissible for the courts to reverse such conclusions below. Do not read material evidence on record
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
