Find a Lawyer

MALIK ASMATULLAH versus MUHAMMAD LATIF THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS

The plaintiff for the declaration of section 42 land evidence was denied by the plaintiff and his predecessor in favor of the defendant in the case which was denied by the plaintiff in a declaratory suit which was legally Was rejected by the courts below. The rights holder in which the plaintiff's predecessor was named in the Column of Property, however, the document shows that the predecessor was captured in the column that was legally recorded in the document The scan record reveals that Previously, a pre-trial suit in connection with the suit land was decided against the foregoing and the order was included in the income record and reinforced the assumption that the amount of premature costs The payment would have been processed after which the underground distribution between the two sons was a registered device, even The sale of the son was also affected by most of the registered documents of change of settlement by the settlers, under the order of the officer to remove the name of the predecessor from the occupation column, the plaintiff had expressed ignorance in response to each collision and section 115. In the sense of CPC, there was no basis for interfering with unclean decisions and decrees. n online advocate from Hub Inds Estate lawyer