Find a Lawyer

FAQIR MUHAMMAD versus FIDA MUHAMMAD

Unlawful possession of a case other than Title 42, their possession was specifically mentioned in the ownership column of the claims claimed by the courts, while the defendants were filed without an owner's rights. I was rejected by title entries. Defendants - Since defendants' predecessors have been enjoying the possession of the suits since 1956, when they claimed that they did not recognize the rights of the plaintiff or anyone, including their predecessor, after their purchase There have been long entries in favor of the defendants. And even before the first settlement in the area, the people to whom the defendant had taken the title were enjoying possession of the suit land from which the defendants had merely acquired the title. I had decided the case. The right of the plaintiff to the institution of the present suit in 1986, theft of the suit land in 1946 and the open occupation of the owners as open and enmity made the defendant's case of negative possession and the decision made by the two courts And had to face orders. Under the auspices of the parties, the concurrence of the two courts, without reading the evidence, was without jurisdiction, the lower appellate court did not exercise its jurisdiction properly and only the two Had confirmed the approved trial decisions. The courts were laid down famous supreme court advocate from Jhand lawyer