Find a Lawyer

MST. SAKINA BIBI versus MST. MUKHTAR BEGUM

In section 9 and 42 of the Convene testimony (10 of 1984), Arts 117 and 118 did not state in the suit for the burden of filing a suit document as to when and to whom they obtained the sole right over which the plaintiff. There were contenders. The suit land had a record of title income but the jumble did not create a title for the plaintiffs. Instead, the documents gave rise to rejected ideas that the entries were correct in favor of the Board of Revenue made by the plaintiffs. Wasn't relevant because he didn't say anything. The controversial variable in the relevant years is the mention of measles, in which the names of the defendants were recorded as occupying the suit land for two decades, remained inconsistent and were sufficient to prove the plaintiffs' claim that the defendants had three Years ago the suit occupied the land. The details of the lawsuit also did not state when and how the defendants seized the disputed land, and the lack of prospects for the plaintiff was also established through a false application established by the defendant. It was alleged that the plaintiff, without explanation, accused him of forcibly crossing the ground, chose not to appear in the witness room even though his general counsel was present before the court's defendant to testify. had lived. The title for which they were to prove their title also failed to be excluded, so they were not entitled to the declaration and are praying for a claim in the country. best law firm from Manoabad lawyer