Find a Lawyer

ABDUL QADIR KHAN versus GHULAM HUSSAIN

Sections 42 and 54 of the Civil Code (v. 1908), the claim for a review of section 115 and the injunctive statements issued by the plaintiffs' witnesses, who were relatives of the two plaintiffs, clearly showed that The suit property was originally owned by the plaintiffs and their other relatives never appeared in a plaintiff's court stating that they were one of the defendants, although their name was the plaintiff / appellant / and the applicant. But it appeared in all stages of the case that, if the plaintiff had participated in the proceedings, part of the suit would have been traced to the property as well. It can be argued that there is no need for the circumstances whether it can be said that the plaintiff sold his share in the suit property to the plaintiff or whether he was entitled to his share or not. Was that some of the plaintiff's relatives in the suit property sold to the plaintiff in 1972 when the other plaintiff was abroad, the plaintiff could not produce any evidence. The effect is that the suit allegedly sold for alleged shares in the property. Consideration was paid by another plaintiff either by the plaintiff or by the relatives of the plaintiff or by someone else, the defendant never made that claim That the suit property is his home country. The request for modification was partially accepted to the extent that he or she was one of the original partners in the suit property or that he had become the plaintiff's shareholder in the property through another legal entity And the plaintiff was the owner. In possession of the property to the extent of 1/30 share and entitled to a decree and permanent injunction as he prayed to that extent power of attorney advocate Karore Lalisan lawyer