FIDA HUSSAIN versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
Sections 42, 54 and 12 of the Land Settlement Manual, Para 173 (Gazette of Dera Ghazi Khan) Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Section 17 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 113 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Declaration Section 115 suit and permanent injunction for the defendant claiming that the suit was claimed to occupy the extent of the portion under the Edlpy agreement was the defendant's request that the plaintiffs could not claim title under the unregistered underwriting agreement. If it turns out that the declaration case is not upheld because the defendants did not claim specific performance, and then the claim for specific performance The amendments included in the ban were banned by the useless courts in this case, the legality of the Adalipi contract was rejected, if proved, no registration of the law was required under the provisions of both the courts as well. It was too. It was found that the subpoena agreement was in fact implemented in favor of the plaintiffs, who met its condition. The plaintiffs were brought into action Nothing could be done through the injunction for specific performance. The plaintiff was justified in declaring the title and filing a lawsuit to protect the occupation, the request for specific performance, If exceeded, defendant's case will not proceed. The declaration regarding the right to property was fully competent and the High Court below ruled by the courts that the application for review of the circumstances should be dismissed.
criminal advocate from Rahwali lawyer
