Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HANIF versus HEERA

Section 42 and in 12 the plaintiffs filed separate claims for the claim that they exchanged their land granted to the defendants by claiming to be their owner, and the defendants rejected the petition and charged it. It is alleged that the unauthorized suit of the defendants was dismissed. There was no question related to the periodic statement of the plaintiff's and the plaintiff's witnesses from time to time regarding the change of occupation due to the exchange transaction, the local commissioner's report being that the land transferred was made by the defendants and theirs Was in control. The entry of the mutation mutation was on record could only indicate that the occupation was related to the exchange. Both the courts misidentified the evidence on record decisions, and below were the orders of the two courts set aside and the plaintiffs' cases listed. Decision in circumstances \ r \ n immigration advocate from Tando Jam lawyer