Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MASHOOQ versus REHMAT ALI ALIAS ISHAQ

Plaintiff sued for declaration in Section 18 and 42 of the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Section 41 Civil Procedure Code (VV 1908), Section 115 suit, claiming that she had obtained any suit in favor of her three. Gift was not given. The son and his three sons obtained the gift of a record for the 195 kanal gift, 8 times in their favor, the plaintiff's sons had filed a written statement against which the suit was filed by a party. On behalf of the person who claimed that they were profitable buyers of the case. From the date of Sunday, the Syed party seized the suit land, the trial court rejected the trial decision, but the appellate court rejected the party's decision on the trial on which they wanted the required title. Had received. The plaintiff's three sons had the land well established as a valuable buyer for valuable consideration without any notice of defect, even if the three sons of the plaintiff ffl had no authority over their father / the plaintiff. Fraud was committed, relief by declaration, which was arbitrary, could not be obtained because the plaintiff could have remedies against her sons, but the aforesaid party had secured the title. The sons said that under the provisions of section 41 of the Transfer Property Act, 1882 real owner / claimant who owned 195 kanals and died 8 times during the litigation even if the plaintiff in favor of his three sons. There was an error with the gift given by. The 117-acre land had a disputed title because the slain legal heir said solicitors from Talamba lawyer