Under the jurisdiction of the Civil Court of the Dis42 Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (VI88 of XXVIII), the discovery of the land of section 25 suit was vacated by the two courts granted the scope to the plaintiff in Tamil possession. And claimed to own the change in return. In favor of the plaintiff filed by the plaintiff, the trial court ruled in its favor, and the lower appellate court, by the plaintiff, submitted that the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff was displaced by the Homelessness (Rehabilitation and Compensation) Act. Was withheld under Section 25. 1958 Authorities confirmed the change in inheritance, whereby the two sons of the deceased landowner were given their due shares, such entries were made in Jambundi (Record of Rights) in 1956. , But afterwards they were illegally altered without authorization. The jurisdiction of the authority authorized under section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, was not absolute, the plaintiff filed the settlement authority. Had not challenged any of the order but rather the complaint was that after confirming the change under the authority of the competent authority Rajat was illegally replaced and such fact was set on record. Beyond any doubt that the recent findings of the jurisdiction of the courts of jurisdiction over the question of facts cannot be interfered with the exercise of jurisdiction under section 115, the CPC decision and passed by the two courts below. The orders were not subjected to any illegal activity or injury.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
