Find a Lawyer

ALI RAZA KHAN versus MALIK SHER MUHAMMAD

Sections 8 and 42 were announced in relation to two plates having conflicting titles and occupying rooms in contentious positions, in the interest of the plaintiffs, the property was allocated through a permanent transfer deed, in which the disputed room was located. Was never in his possession. In advance interest claimants asserted that they had voluntarily leased the defendants free use, in the suit position sought after the plaintiffs for their use was that the room was previously used by the Food Department. After the trial, the case was dismissed, but the appellate court allowed the appeal and in the subsequent case there was evidence of disputes between the plaintiff and the plaintiff. Showed. Defendants' case was never wrong in the case it raised, there was no explanation for the controversial room pursuit and the controversial positions in which the two plots were adopted, and defendant's title was obtained. The disputed room was occupied by a legacy-sold deed that occupied the Food Department and the defendants' possession was uncontested and such fact was sufficient for the purpose of not prosecuting the plaintiffs as they were entitled to Limited to the part in which the case was in the interest of the plaintiff only in the possession of the predecessor when a permanent transfer deed was issued It was when the trial court truly reviewed such aspects of the case that they were dismissed. The appellate court misrepresented the record of the defendant's documents and did not note the documentary evidence and records and the appellate court ruled advocate for immigration from Sangla Hill lawyer