Find a Lawyer

IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN KHAN versus MUHAMMAD GULZAR KHAN

The second appeal, based on section 100 and O XXII, R 3 adverse possession, the respondent's absence claimed that the suit land was with his grandfather and that after his death it was during his lifetime. Remained in control of his father. And then they were in possession of which their possession was accepted not only by the appellant, but also by the defendants who filed the dismissal of the case filed with the Revenue Record Trial Court and the Appellate Court. Was made, the appellants filed a second appeal before the High Court against the decisions. The death of one of the appellants was passed on appeal, but their legal heirs were not brought on record by the appellant within the prescribed time limit. Respondents have requested that the defendant remain fully present in the appeal, because of the applicant's legal heritage. The appellants were that after the adoption of the Pakistan Law Reform Ordinance 1972 in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the proceedings would not be binding for the enforcement of the legal heritage of any party. Prior to the approval of the amendment in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the victim of the validity of the appellant had died and was not given any applicable effect, not applicable in this case, which was present before the adoption of the law. The said amendment will rule on the matter even as the amendment was enforced through the Law Reform Ordinance 1972 which was not enforced by the Law Enforcement Ordinance 1972 which cannot be denied to the respondents Which were imposed on them before the adoption of the amendments in the independent jurisdiction. Cash under challenge pakistani advocates Chaininda lawyer