Find a Lawyer

AKRAM KHAN versus THE STATE

Sections 4 and 5 of the Border Tenancy Act 1950 and the Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Articles 42 and 54 of the Proclamation and Permanent Order restraining jurisdiction, the exercise of the plaintiffs / applicants claimed that in accordance with the previous settlement Is owned and occupied by the predecessor of. As a result the settlement was adjusted and in another area and the respondents / respondents who were the professional tenants were subsequently told that they had become the owners of the settlement, regarding the claimant in the said area, It called for the declaration that they were the owners of the said area, the decision of the trial case, but the appellate court below set aside the trial court's order and order and proved on record that the defendants The foregoing plaintiff became the owner of the suit and the defendant's foreclosure was in the same manner as the possession of the tenant by which he was a professional Was a tenant. After the declaration of the plaintiff's predecessor and section 4 of the Northwest Frontier Province Tenancy Act, 1950, merchants submitted the required rent and their status was changed to the owners of the maps of the suit land survey although there was no direct proof of title. But now it is a direct indication of the time at which the survey map was at a particular time. After a lengthy debate on all material matters, the appellate court set aside the judgment and injunction passed in favor of the plaintiffs / applicants and no prejudice was presented to the plaintiffs. , Which resulted in the misrepresentation or non-recourse of the evidence on record, the High Court amended its decision in the appeal decision. attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Dunyapur lawyer