Find a Lawyer

GHULAM MUHAMMAD THROUGH L.RS. NAZIR versus MST. RASOOLAN

Section & Q 42 of the Law Shariat (10 of 10), title and occupation declaration 117 and 120 suit property, the plaintiffs sued to prove the present findings of fact by the courts below the plaintiffs. Demanding the honor of owning the land and claiming that the defendants had forcibly occupied the land 8/2 years ago, the trial court and the appellate court dismissed the case and dismissed the appeal. The Waldetti plaintiffs were to prove their case that they were the owners of the suit land and were entitled to their possession. In the same way as they sought in their claimant, both courts moved their jurisdiction to proceed unlawfully and with material irregularities on the basis that they initially proved their defense to the defendants. Had to do, so the case does not have to prove to the plaintiff. Before the defendant could have sought to prove his defense, the defendant failed to prove his case on the basis of the documentary evidence, Jamabandi in 1981 justified the removal of the predecessor's name in the interest of the defendants. His failure to present 82 On the other hand, in the Jamabandi year, 1934 35 to 1968 69, the interests of the plaintiffs appear to be foreseeable as the owner was charged with physical possession of the suit land. Plaintiff failed to present any jurisdiction in plaintiff's prior year, 1934, 35, to exclude the position of evidence placed on defendant in connection with the issue of purchase of suit land by the defendant. It may appear that the predecessor is not in the interest of the defendants as before famous high court advocate from New Saeedabad lawyer