Find a Lawyer

MST. SAMMO versus FALAK SHER

The case of the plaintiff's statement of section 42 was that he and his brother owned 65 kanals in the joint account, 14 marshals in each and his brother had sold 73 kanals, 8 marla land and thus exceeded that. had gone. In other buyers' rights, the predecessor, in the interest of the defendants, had also purchased the plaintiff's brother and mutation, in which the plaintiff had legally approved her, saying that it was invalid. And this is more than its seller's right to sue the plaintiff / legal heir of the defendant's seller, claiming that the plaintiff's shopkeeper was the owner of the brother suit land when he filed the questions in the court below the lawsuit filed in the plaintiff's lawsuit. The same video was sold for a mutation, so it caught its claimant. The brother, along with his third brother, had mortgaged 8 kanals, 8 marla, in favor of each mortgagee that did not have any mortgage, and the court below found the plaintiff's seller's son to be in error in his statement. His father kept the 8 kanal and 8 marla harmony verdicts and down the court orders, he was put aside and the case filed by the plaintiff was dropped. law firms from Jhal Magsi lawyer