Find a Lawyer

AHMED KHAN versus MUHAMMAD LATIF

Section 8 and 42 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908), Section 28 and Article 144 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Land Reforms Act, 1960, Section 25 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Section 42 suit declaration and joint occupation The common ancestor for was owned by property-owned parties in Pakistan and the tenant was in possession of the land, survived by two sons, CD and MR (in the interest of the parties), Pakistan. The property was renamed CD and MR, while the death of the suit land CD was granted by their legal descendants (defendants) in their favor on 15 6 1958. Any change in ownership or legal progeny received complete discharge 25 2 1967 confirmed the suit land in favor of the plaintiff defendants. The provisions of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Land Reforms Act, 1960, brought the defendants to the trial to declare such variation illegal and the trial court for joint possession dismissed the defendant's request, ruling the case. Their possession of the suit land was converted into property due to their possession, the trial and trial decision were first adopted by the appellate court, but in the second appeal it was restored by the high court. Defendants' records show that the first written request was made by the defendants in a written statement that the parties were a contentious partner in a suit for mutation of the land under which the defendant was claiming that the facts were hidden. Such changes recorded on a tax basis violated the law when upon his death the property of the common ancestor was automatically transferred to his legal and legal property. famous lower court advocate from Dijkot lawyer