Find a Lawyer

GHAMA versus AHMAD

Clause 8 and 42 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 144, the declaration of suit and the suit against the occupation, together with the request of the defendants in the drug possession case, the adverse possession of the comprehensive bond on the suit land showed that the plaintiff Were owners. The suit was in the possession of the land and the defendants because the tenants relied on the entries in the Revenue Record where it was mentioned that the appellant court, along with the plaintiff Ghorosi Morsi Ba Shara Malikan Trial Court, dismissed the case. And it was registered in such a way that the income of the defendants from the record tenants to the owners was not changed. Will continue to be a tenant because he cannot be treated as the owner of the disputed land because he There were conflicting requests for ownership and negative possession, and the decisions and orders under both courts were the result of misreading. The revenue document was not read on the record and the law was misinterpreted. Both the courts committed material irregularities and illegal acts. The High Court set aside the decisions and orders passed by the courts below. tax advocates from Wana lawyer