Find a Lawyer

REHMAT ALI versus ABDUL GHANI

Section 8 and 42 of the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), section 52 and 119 demarcation act (IX of 1908), Article 143 suit for transfer of land transfer limitation in exchange for cancellation of allotment of land In the interest of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's father-in-law owned the land in exchange for his claim that the plaintiff's allotment of land to the plaintiffs was canceled and The Border Area Committee resumed by the plaintiffs on the power of section 119 of the Transfer of Property Act. Their claim asserts that the plaintiffs were allotted the land and that the plaintiffs were in turn terminated by the Border Area Committee and resumed proceedings, by the defendants through the defendants. They were entitled to a return of the land transferred. The Transfer Property Act, 1882 was not enforceable and was at the time of the exchange title was not defective to the defendants. That the plaintiffs did not pray for the occupation of their land and were sued under section 42 of the Special Relief Act 1877, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, the plaintiffs, who had lost their land in return, The defendants were entitled to recover the land given by the defendants on the sale of the land given by the defendants to the other birds, the defendants could not claim that the land given in lieu of the defendants was still not in the possession of the defendants. Because the defendants' dispute was stopped. Subsequently, the matter of transfer of the defendants to the right of the parties under Section 22 of the Transfer of Property Act under the principle of lease pendenza principle tax advocates from Mangi lawyer