Sections 3 and 4 were charged with appeal against evidence of illegal occupation prevention that they had occupied the complainant's property illegally because the accused claimed to be the owner of the disputed house. He was living in the same complaint. His statement before the trial court did not rule out the suggestion that the defendant had owned the disputed property since 2007. The complainant did not say that he was in possession of the disputed property and was only told that when the disputed property was visited with the tenant, he found that the locks were broken, however, it was not mentioned. It was whether he visited the property or when the witness found that the locks were broken through the complaint, in his cross-examination, confessed that the two other properties were sold by her husband. However, it is stated that the share of the accused (two brothers) was given to them either that the accused or any of them was involved in the occupation of the land or that it belonged to the Qibla Group / Land Mafia. In connection with the incident and was not established by evidence that the disputed property was occupied at any time. The complainant cannot claim disposition at the hands of the complainant when he was never physically in possession of the disputed property The defendant's residence in the disputed property could not be substantiated to prove that some of the complainant's unlawful losses were disputed. Valid claims existed between legal heirs, between shareholders, legitimate claims, landlords and tenants, inheritance, contractual agreements, etc., but to attract the provisions of the Unlawful Settlement Act
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
