Find a Lawyer

SOHNI KHAN versus GHULAM QADIR

Section 5 Special Relief Act (of 1877), Article 42 Civil Code of Conduct (v. 1908), declaration of action against title to section 115, the petitioner asserts the facts by the courts below that the plaintiff asserts that The land is their permanent / defendant's claim that the plaintiffs' possession was under the tenants under them and the former employee in the interest of the plaintiff was the occupying tenant without paying any rent for the land in his possession, Which was changed. Due to non-payment of liabilities under section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1969, the year 1892, the defendants did not challenge the change of record of revenue for twenty years till the present case was registered in the 5th of 1990. , And that too on the basis of adverse possession without challenging the change in the revenue record, the two courts, respectively, dismissed the case and appeal, the plaintiff's review suit, as though I was not, however, competent because of the defendants' The negative possession request can be used as a shield but cannot be grounded. The basis for filing a lawsuit claiming ownership of the property was contrary to such application. Otherwise the record could not prove that the non-payment of rent to the owner in 1969 alone was not sufficient to support the declaration of measles in the title of 70 and other records of the Revenue revealed that the plaintiff at the time of the suit. There were tenants. ; Therefore, no order in his favor could be passed earlier in the year concerning his status; any court under section 115 CPC sought any illegal / irregularities of any kind. immigration advocates from Abbaspur lawyer