Find a Lawyer

TAHIR MAHMOOD versus FAQIR MUHAMMAD

Plaintiffs' requests for the acquisition of section 79 of the Property Act (I82 of I82), Section 68 Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), VIII, RR 6 and 7 Convention evidence (section 10 of 1984). He was not the owner of the plaintiff suit land. That the plaintiff had mortgaged the suit with the promise to return the mortgage to the plaintiff upon his return of the possession thereof. That he was entitled to the costs of the improvement of the plaintiff's land in order to deny the claimant ownership. Due to the plaintiff's denial of ownership it cannot be claimed that the alleged mortgage was returned. The plaintiff did not claim it in the written statement, nor did it provide details about the alleged improvement on the suit land. In the absence of such claims or particulars, the defendant could not seek relief for any refund or payment of improvement costs, the defendant allegedly having a record mortgage agreement on record without his formal proof. Did not file a refund. As per the circumstances, the order of the suit was issued attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Rawalpindi lawyer