Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN

The Special Relief Act 1877 Sections 9, 42 and 54 of the Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art 100 property suit were forcibly disposed of, declared permanent and occupied by the plaintiff claiming that the suit was acquired by his father. Legally purchased, he is in possession / possession of his father until his death and after that he inherits it and he remains in possession of it as owner, but later the suit in 1974. The property was seized by the father of the second defendant and in the interest of the rest of the defendants. By presenting the documentary documents and oral evidence, the plaintiff had fully proved that the land in dispute was purchased by his father and was in possession of his cultivation by the plaintiff's father to cultivate the land. Worked, it could not be cured. The trial court had heard the case filed by the plaintiff, but the appellate court rejected the ruling on two grounds; neither the action in the regard of the property in the first dispute was recorded nor the fact of it. The analogy was connected. Secondly, that the Crown witness was not presented at the trial and it was stated that the property deed was not given in the sale deed, the Court of Appeal for not registering the sale deed. Detection was not justified because the operation of the sale, registration act, 1908 was not applicable in the area concerned and the procedure was generally carried out under the local customs of the area known as Chitral. In which there was no formal mechanism for the sales process but the sale had to be done. Related law websites from Mailsi lawyer