Section 8 suit for sale of displaced measles effect dispute measles sellers, 13 kanals, 16 marla, 119 sq ft, originally owned by three persons A, B and CA and B, 3/8 undivided share in measles While some of B's legal heirs in the joint lawsuit owned some of B's heirs, they transferred their shares in favor of the plaintiff's video sale, saying that one of the seller / claimant Claimed that the entire suit was dedicated to the property. Therefore, a deduction could not be sold by his ancestors because the plaintiff filed a suit against the plaintiff under the claim of ownership, which, despite the defendant's refusal under oath, No attempt was made to prove the execution of the sale. The answer to the question states that the seller / claimant case went up to the Supreme Court in the first round of litigation and admitted that there was no dedicated property in the disputed area, but that the measles was not divided. The plaintiff can claim the extent of the portion in the undivided suit property that appeared to the intended seller and he admits the execution of the sale agreement in favor of the plaintiff. Below, nor was it necessary that the plaintiff in the situation could not be ordered to seize the entire suit, so the order of the two courts below was set aside \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
