For petition 135 and 141, the Partition Petitioner alleged that there had already been an impact of private division between the parties and that they had been in control of their respective territories since the time the parties recorded the declaration of the declaration. The results of the appellate court were affirmed and maintained. The petitioner's position by the High Court was that the defendant occupied 4 kanal of land in the petition for maximum accuracy under the petition filed in 1980 and he did not even have a word against private distribution in the nineteen seventy. And the parties were occupying their respective territories. Since then, the record of displaying some canal land with the respondents was certainly in line with the parties' agreement in 1969, the decision was not to face any illegal or legal weakness, the Supreme Court said. Dismissed and dismissed from appeal.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
