On the basis of the statements of the four participants, the plaintiff for declaration and seizure in the capacity of representation in sections 11, OI, Rr 3, 8 and O VII, R 11 specific relief act (I of 1877), sections 8 and 42 suit. Shamlat claims to be the owner of the village. The partners surrendered the entire suit to the plaintiff in favor of the plaintiff and claimed that the case was rejected in the case of adverse possession filed by the plaintiff, and therefore, the current case was influenced by the Res Judeta doctrine. And four such partners were authorized by the other partners to surrender to the plaintiff in favor of the plaintiff, the validity of such four partners would be binding on them, thereby limiting their undivided The candles will be in the candles, which is why they were. It is not necessary to seek permission from the other partners, including the defendants, who stated that four of their partners had become the property of the plaintiff in the case of unauthorized possession, the Shariah court had negative ownership of the accused as the accused of Islam. Dismissed his right to be deposed. The legal case was rightfully dismissed after the current suit was dismissed, in which case the plaintiff's plea was dismissed.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
