Find a Lawyer

ABDUL HAMEED versus MUHAMMAD HANIF

ANXNX, RR1, 2 and Section 151 temporarily includes a shop in the possession of the tenant for disputed property divided in the injunction suit, in which the plaintiff claims the former owner Ann Plaintiff (successor in the interest of) Executed by date of sale deed dated 23d 1939. S) claimed to be the owner of the shop on the basis of the registered sale deed executed by the daughter of the previous owner on 22 April 1941, which was filed with her father by the trial court from 18 to 1939 through the trial court. And the appellate court refused to pray for it. The temporary injunction was a valid claim. The suit filed for partition without challenging the Tamalek case was reportedly executed by the previous owner in favor of his daughter, who had sold it further to S. (in the interest of the defendants). The Tamalek was previously sold in 18 19 1939, while the sale date was 23 3 1939 in favor of the plaintiff, in which the shop was sold in dispute, which was presented on 22 4 1941, which was presented by the defendants. In the interest of the forerunner was the first evidence of ownership in the interest of the predecessor, which was retained by the claimant through the claimant. The acceptance of the High Court's request for a temporary injunction will result in the defendant's ability to stop the possession of the shop, the plaintiff has neither the first right nor pointed to any irreparable harm or injury. And no one has been hurt, because of which he will pass. With the restraining order prohibited, not all such components were in the court of defendant's trial and the appellate court did nothing wrong. law firms from Bhuawana lawyer