Find a Lawyer

FAIZ MUHAMMAD versus SHER MUHAMMMAD

Section 36 Special Relief Act (Constitution of 1877), Article 42 Declaration of Civil Courts, Jurisdiction of the Proprietary Rights, In 1963, four brothers were jointly ordered by the Collector in the year 1993, an order passed in 1963 Reviewed. Through the defendant, one of the four brothers, the plaintiff, seized the order of the collector's review and claimed that the suit was owned by the plaintiff based on the grant of property rights, the trial court ruled in favor of the defendants. And set aside the revision order approved by him. The collector appellate court allowed the appeal and found that the civil court was not entitled to the declaration under section 36 of the Colonial Act of Punjab (Punjab) Act 1912, the appellate court error was erroneous as the plaintiff filed a valid order Were armed with Dated 22 7 1963, whereby all four brothers were found to be entitled to property rights in the suit, and that was the title that was claimed by the plaintiff through the lawsuit filed by the FS parties regarding their respective requests. They were fully aware and accordingly the trial court, after considering the evidence and especially after the order of 22 7 1963, found that the plaintiff was the co-owner of the property in the dispute once the property was approved. The rights were granted, the dispute was restricted to the question of title among the brothers, no room for commitment of the de novo through the Collector. B. There was support for the decision of the provincial appellate court to hand over such a request to the parties. The collector was legally without the trial court's approved interpretation and the trial by the appellate court immigration advocates phone number from Gharo lawyer