Find a Lawyer

ALLAH DITTA versus AKBAR ALI

Sections 28, Arts 144 and 148 Specific Relief Act (of 1877), Section 42 suit for the plaintiffs claiming to be the owner of the suit land for continuous possession for more than sixty years as the mortgagee defendants Denied the facts of the mortgage and claimed that the suit was dismissed by the trial court for all persons, but the appellate court held that the evidence showed that the defendant was never a defendant. Was granted, but they were in compliance with section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908, because the defendants were not required to file a lawsuit for possession of land. That the property was owned by him and the appellate court wrongly presented the evidence. The plaintiff's decision was terminated in 1955 without any jurisdiction over the defendants' allegations, even if any The title was charged. The defendants, on the principle contained in Section 28 of the Limitation Act, were required to file a case for possession within 12 years of the acquisition of the title, but the case was filed in 1987, twenty-two years. Later, the High Court accepted the review petition and set aside the unclean decision and order and restored it which was approved by the trial court. when you need a advocate from Mirpur Khas lawyer