Section 8 suit for occupying the land, which was simultaneously decided in favor of the defendants, was defended by the plaintiffs revised by the unanimous decision of the two courts below the defendants. That the land in dispute is the land that was given to their ancestors in return. The service rendered by him and the defendant "compulsory" at the shrine of Ziarat Musa Babar had been occupying the suit land since ancient times and could not be dispossessed, the evidence on the record fully proved that The land in the dispute was \ Siri \ and the defendants were \ Siraikur, and their occupation was more than that year, the defendant's predecessor had been in the service of the people of Musa Baba and the village at the time of his celebrations. "Malikan e-occupation" and he was not the owner even though the plaintiff in the village was "land" and did not own the land under dispute, Because they called this land cultivable and made it better. On the trees, they cannot be excluded The village proprietorship has generally stated that the lower courts failed to define the legal position, accepting the affidavit of the High Court and all the concurrent decisions approved by the following courts and Dismissed the order and dismissed the case.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
