Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAFIQ versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE

The claim that the Section 8 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Articles 282, Arts 142 and 144 exceeded the orders of Islam was that they had occupied the suit land for the past 23 years, therefore, for the possession of the plaintiff ff. The trial was time-barred because they failed to approach the court for a period of twelve years under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, telling the suit that the courts had ruled that since the delimitation Act 1908 Against Article 28 and Article 144. The order of Islam, the question of demarcation was not fully established, in the sense of Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, it was the sole physical possession of the expulsion or closure of the occupation and to prove any conceptual or constructive occupation. There was nothing on record for this. At any time the plaintiff in the dispute was in possession of the property only as a result of the settlement proceedings, which were immovable In 1973, the title of the disputed property became part of the plaintiffs who joined the joint litigation before the settlement with the plaintiffs. Was a partner, since the claimant was never proved in the physical possession of the claimant, therefore included in Article 142. There is no claim in the petition that the claimants claim that they were the owners of the land occupied by the suit was not supported by any evidence, and the Revenue Record made it clear that the defendants were in possession of the disputed land. Such an occupation was only made aware of the suit land ownership after the consolidation proceedings. Defendants have no rights, nor have they given any special status to the plaintiffs' contentious title, only for defendants. tax advocates from Tobatek Singh lawyer