Under Section 259 1975 order for the allotment of property in favor of the defendant's predecessor by the Section 8 Settlement Authorities, the defendant's foreclosure challenged such allotment through a constitutional petition which the plaintiff dismissed. And claimed compensation against the defendants. The monthly defense of Rs 100, which was set up by the defendants, was that the property was allotted to him by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in 1961 without any interruption on the basis of the PTO. The defendant / plaintiff in the disputed property was born under the mortgage, which since the trial court considered the record under section 3 of the Compensation and Rehabilitation Act of 1958, confirmed the trial and order Was In the written statement its number is tolerated by the defendants who claim that the issue of property is different from the property which the defendants are claiming, they had no power as to prove that It was also not on record that the number of properties is two separate properties. The questions raised in the petition were already settled in three civil amendments which held that in the interest of the respondents / plaintiffs the title of the predecessor was deputed. The settlement was removed by the order of the Commissioner, which was upheld by the High Court in the constitutional petition and the defendant's It was upheld by the Supreme Court Allotment in favor of Yashiro. Finally, when the constitutional petition was dismissed, deputies who were respondents / plaintiffs of the deputy settlement commissioner's order filed the case for possession immediately after the dismissal of the constitutional petition, which was within the limitation period. , K
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
