Find a Lawyer

ASHIQ MUHAMMAD versus HABIB ULLAH

Section 6 pre-emption suit pre-emptor asserted that it was owned by District No. 16/1 of Square No. 164, which was adjoining Fort No. 15 of the suit land dismissed by the trial court, the appellate court ruled thereby. Classes 7, 8 and 15 of the sons of the registered rights of the said Square No. 164 from the respective years, showed that the Square No. 164, based on the square, was a participant in the land consisting of Class Nos. 16/1 and 16/2. ? Nos. 7 and 8 were in the same line, and below was Fort No. 15, and in the next line below there were three fortresses containing No. 16, which does not show evidence on the record which of the fort No. 16 belonged to the former Empire Register. It was from the sons of the rights that the fort No. 16 was divided into fort 16/2 (unconfirmed population) and the exact location of fort number 16/1 (nul chai) was not understandable in twenty-one equal. The question of premature right to autonomy should be decided on the basis of such record without checking the authenticity of the record. The trial court set aside the order / order after directing the parties to inquire into the original revenue record and an issue and to allow the parties to inquire into the patwari in respect of the original record. inheritance advocates near Khuzdar lawyer