Find a Lawyer

HABIB-UR-REHMAN versus SAMANDAR KHAN

Sections 42 & 54 54 The Case for Declaration and Permanent Order The defendant defendants requested that the plot in the dispute be in their possession in which they pumped a hand pump and that the original defendants, who were subsequently their legal heirs, The source was successful, claiming to be the owner illegally. About the plots mentioned above and they were threatening the defendants to evict them. The defendants, in their written statement, claimed that they were the owners of the above mentioned plots based on the property sold by Hindu owners during the years 1941 and 1946. The city's survey records also altered sales practices in their favor, after both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed the case below, the defendants said there were no claims of litigation against several decisions. That they claim ownership of the plots in the dispute and not the said plots and the defendants themselves have admitted that no compound wall is available Ite Plaintiffs only stated that they had installed a hand pump. , Which in itself would not prove the physical possession of the plaintiffs on the plots in dispute because it has been said that the plots are open and non The concept of transferring possession is, in the circumstances, in favor of the plaintiff of the department. He did not even claim in his case that because of his occupation, he had become legally entitled to transfer the plot in his favor under the provisions of the Homelessness (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, In the absence of such a plea and evidence, their case was declared to be sufficiently unenforceable for a declaration against the defendants. best advocate from Jamrud Road lawyer