Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN versus GHULAM QADIR THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS

Evidence contained in Sections 3 (3) and 15 prior to the notice suit civil lien immovable property / evidence evidence shows that in the present case, the lot was likely destroyed. There is a metal road on the above ground. There was land around a city. An overhead water tank was built in the suit area. There was a sugar mill in the vicinity of the above mentioned land. The land in the village was being used by a large number of people for residential purposes. The 18 kanal of land in question is being distributed by at least 11 shopkeepers, which means that each shopkeeper gets a little more than one kanal of land for himself. Such small pieces of shops could not be bought for agricultural purposes, nor could they be used in the same way. The shopkeepers built the jagis and \ chambers on the suit area where they resided, and they were living in the village where the suit land was located, and it was not targeted for stability. Citizens qualify as immovable property as such and thus were already exempt from occupation, ban civic real estate does not mean that immovable property falls within the boundaries of a town. And it is open to any property to be declared for the Supreme Court. Citizens may be immovable property even if the incident is outside the boundaries of a town, provided there are facts and circumstances to warrant full proof of such discovery in the present case, indicating that the suit land I have all the properties, facts and circumstances of a city property. This is a true indication of the fact that the suit is nothing but land immigration advocates email from Sambrial lawyer