Find a Lawyer

BIBI ZOHRA versus ABDUR REHMAN

Claimants for Section 42 and Su 54 Sue's Declaration and Permanent Order were requested to declare that they are the owner of the suit land, which was kept by them, and named after the construction work. The ownership records in the Revenue Record on the name were facts against the defendants' rights and consequently illegal. The appellate court as well as the Revenue Record containing Goswara and Jamabandi and Revenue Records, concluded that the plaintiffs were enjoying the suit land as a case. Siri - Because their ancestors transferred ownership rights to the plaintiffs and their ancestors without giving any rent, produce and charcoal, etc. to the defendants or their ancestors because of the land they occupied as suede land. The plaintiff had come with sufficient evidence. Witnesses on record and failed to present any evidence to prove their claims were subjected to testimony and lengthy scrutiny by testimony, but nothing was recovered from them. Their credibility can be diminished if the following courts have properly reviewed and appreciated the evidence in this case and there is no case for wrong reading or non-reading. Interference not identified, unanimous decision on the status of the plaintiffs in the land case, reviewed I cannot be bothered by the High Court tax advocates from Kakul lawyer