Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAFI versus MUHAMMAD ASHIQ

Declaration of suit land for Articles 8 and 42 and the suit land for occupation were actually the property of a church and the matter established by the defendant was that it had executed a sale proceeding in favor of it. The source purchased the suit land and as a result the seller placed the title on the sale. The defense of the defense of the church, founded by the appellant, was hanged in his favor that he had long been in possession of the suit and his title had been settled on a negative possession. Attorney cannot present on record basis. A church lawyer sold the land. It was a serious mistake that reached the root of the stand by the defendant that in view of the recognized position that the church was actually the owner of the land and the defense established by the appellant was considered, the respondent did not To prove every document in connection with the transaction from its alleged title, but failed to do so even if created by a lawyer. It was important for the church to know that for the purposes of determining whether the attorney was authorized to sell the church property or not, the courts below have not considered any aspect of the matter. What was a fatal deficiency in the defendant's case. When the appellant admittedly seized the suit land, the respondents intended to get a similar case, in which case the case established by the respondents was also dismissed, which led to both the courts. What was wrong with the law, irrelevant concurrent injunction pakistani advocates Hub Inds Estate lawyer