Find a Lawyer

MST. GUL NISA versus MUHAMMAD ASIF

The lack of knowledge of such entries on the entry of the Revenue Record on the tax filing under Articles 42 and 52 of the Martyrs (10 of 1984), Arts 117 and 120, provided that the suit land was actually a barren land under which the tribal Was under the Chief. The tribal system made this purchase from the tribal chief in the interest of the plaintiffs in 1953, it was made cultivable, and as a proprietor of the owners, the tribal chief's evidence in favor of the plaintiffs in 1971 The execution of the execution was made. During the settlement proceedings from 1968 to 1970, the same matter was included in the Revenue Record, in the interest of the defendants the suit land was changed in the name of the forerunner and consequently the plaintiff in the Revenue Record was also village. I became the owner. The trial court rejected the case and these findings were maintained by the High Court under the jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation Court. When he was the owner of the suit land and did not know the records in the Revenue Record in the name of the defendants, such a request was not available to the plaintiffs on the grounds of justification. Similarly, the High Court's claim of possession of the suit was rightfully so. Was rejected. In the interests of the plaintiffs prior to the settlement in 1968, no evidence as to the proprietor's ownership was proved by the fact that the plaintiff had failed to prove how the tribal chief acquired the title to the land and How did he move his title? In 1953, the plaintiff's interest in the plaintiff was a suite land that was a wasteland and was not privately owned by anyone and did not become part of the revenue record through settlement. pakistani advocates Kazi Ahmed lawyer