Find a Lawyer

SHARIFAN BIBI versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR

Section 42 of the suit's suit for claiming that the plaintiff was the owner of the 1/1 part of the claimant and the retaliation was unlawfully granted in favor of the defendant in association with the revenue officials. He had also filed a separate lawsuit to announce his views. The owner of the cover was both the owner and both the defendants were brought together, both by the courts under the simultaneous expulsion filed by the accused and by the defendant in the case filed by the defendant. The individual pleaded guilty in a written statement requesting that he was the owner. The possession of the land by an agreement in their favor in the dispute was not objected to in the court that was presented, not surprisingly to the defendants raised in the written statement of the special suit. Was taken The courts were not allowed to abandon the alleged deliberations agreement. By considering and discussing the documentary evidence, the verdicts had to overcome the law, the decision was rejected by the High Court suit. The trial will be adjourned to the court, which will record the results and decide the same. The findings of the court below were affirmed on the remaining specific issues ask a advocate free from Ugoki lawyer