Find a Lawyer

MST. AMINA BIBI versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD

The Section 44 lawsuit permanently ruled that the defendant asserted that he had been partially given a gift in favor of his father, and partly through the way of sale, the defendant claimed that the defendants were his Want to interfere with the occupation for which they had. No substantive material testimony was produced by the plaintiff, who was a relative of the two parties, and it was not specifically stated that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit and the defendants had no right in respect of the suit land. It was mandatory for the claimants to claim the family division of the suit property. The aforesaid family division record has been processed but there was no family division available on the record which the claimant partly proved to be the owner of the property by way of gift and partly in favor of it. The trial court had rightly ruled that the defendant had the right to defend his possession and that defendants had no right to interfere with his possession. us immigration advocates from Pind Dadan Khan lawyer