Find a Lawyer

MST. RABIA BIBI versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB

Section 26 and Relief Act (section 1877), the plaintiffs for section 8 and 42 suit declaration and occupation owned property up to 26 kanal and 11 marl, while in Shimlaland 95 kanal and 15 karla were part of it. Also made another purchase. lat 34 kanal and one mariam shamat was the total right of the plaintiff in the field and 76 kanal and said marla and said that those who defeated the real right in respect of the property of the claimant were not claimed to be 156 kanals and 7 of them. Marla Plaintiff sold 148 kanals and was granted 17 Marla by the Plaintiff in favor of the Plaintiff when it was stated that the Plaintiff was not entitled to change the Plaintiff's claim of alien land. Particularly when there was no evidence that the defendants later separated any land. In favor of the plaintiff which could in any way diminish the plaintiff's share, in the circumstances, the trial court correctly failed to grant his claim in respect of 156 Kanal and 7 Marla, in respect of his original rights. But concluding that the plaintiff was unable to establish his ownership of the suit and the appellate court was not justified in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff plain The plaintiff is entitled to the land. The appellate court's findings did not support any of the material in the record, the High Court set aside and allowed the review, the appellate court's decision and the injunction were set aside. \ r \ n \ r \ n law firms from Mandi Bahauddin lawyer