ABDUL RAZZAQ versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ
The joint property distribution parties were co-owners of the suit property that their predecessor had left in interest; the defendant had prepared a copy of the PT1 survey report to prove that the private distribution was already in place, The place was and the plaintiff was prevented from filing the facts and the documents produced by the parties, it cannot be said that if any action was taken on the family settlement and all the co-proprietors were part of the private division. Are occupying this land and, therefore, cannot be considered worthy owners of this land and the competent jurisdiction below Prepare both courts was the fact that a property was not distributed privately and is common even among parties which were orders were approved for occupancy by dividing by the courts. As per the shares of the parties who did not need any interference in the use of the amendment gym, the order of the High Court under Section 115 CPC
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
female advocates from Kahuta lawyer
