Find a Lawyer

AMANAT ALI versus MUHAMMAD AZEEM THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS

Section 42 & Pla 54 Claimant as Defendant and Defendant Defendant Claiming Claim, claimed that they were occupying the land as the owner who made the settlement part of the Defendant's and defendant Should be denied the right to own and interfere with their occupation. The most important case to be sued was about the plaintiffs' ownership of the dispute in relation to the land, the parties presented their evidence and, based on the testimony of the evidence, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff had proved himself master. The decision was cited by the trial court and it was confirmed in the appeal that the defendants were not lawful owners in Moza, but they had purchased some land outside the settlement through a registered sale deed. So could not own any particular part of it. Due to the purchase of such territory, in addition to the possession of the plaintiffs, the finding of the suit was filed by two courts, which was due to the testimony of the oral evidence that the plaintiff was the owner. And no misinterpretation and non-reading was established by the defendants. advocate for immigration from Sohawa District Daska lawyer