Find a Lawyer

SIRANJAM KHAN versus AQAL DIN

Article 42 Suit for declaration to declare the effect that the plaintiff has owned the property through the prescription, meaning that he has been mortgaged for more than 60 years and has no mortgage. And that on the contrary, the entries in the Revenue Record were illegal, outlawed and ineffective, the plaintiff's suit land was mortgaged with a non-Muslim and any of it was residential property, part 1/2 of it. Was later at 1. Through the conversion / share share was redeemed, while the rest of the property was left to the extent of 3/3 shares, mortgages were still kept with the non-Muslim mortgage at the time of division of the whole continent. It was transferred in the name of the central government and later the sale of the mortgage rights was transferred to the claimant by auction. The plaintiff had to prove his case with his own evidence and no benefit from the witnesses in the defendant's case. Could not be taken by anyone who wants a court to decide on a legal right or obligation depending on its existence. The facts, which he asserted, must prove that those facts existed; the plaintiff could not prove the Court of Appeal as well as the Court of Appeal on his claim through independent and independent evidence. Referring to every aspect of the case, the issue was rightly decided and the arguments rendered unreasonable, both courts after a proper scrutiny of the evidence on file and all the supporters and opinions of the case. Hard decisions were made after separation. The fact is that both courts arrived at the same time, to challenge civil revision pakistani advocates Ali Chak lawyer