Find a Lawyer

GHULAM MUHAMMAD versus SHAMIM AHMAD KHAN

Sections 4 and 15 of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act, 1913, and the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), the pre-emptor exchanged the sale of section 46 notices, claiming that the shopkeeper was suicidal, while the shopkeepers filed a case. Requested to be a tenant. In this case, when the appellate court accepted the shopkeepers' partial appeals, it was found that pre-emptor had no pre-emption waiver and was not excluded in any vendor's premises. Part of the seller was specific. And it is claimed that he is a non-resident tenant in the suit land, having the right to retain the land to the extent of his share. Waldetti Plya was not held that the sale was fragmented and the vendors participated in the price according to their shares. In his written statement, he could not plead that he was a tenant in all suit land. At the time of registration, Wendy / Appellant had a lump sum sale of rice for Rs 35,000 and had a share of 3/4 and paid separately in proportion to such fact sale case. I was not told. Other witnesses, after making a statement as to the appellant / seller, admitted that such a matter was neither noted nor registered in the registered sale deed. None of the witnesses has the right to sell the batch, and no other witness can explain that the courts below have correctly found that the appellant / seller has the right to retain the land purchased by him. Cannot be allowed to be a stranger with a stranger advocates from Hattar lawyer