Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF versus MUHAMMAD YOUNIS

Section Q Qunununun ehadhadhadhad Shahadat (10 of 1984), the unanimous decision to dismiss Article 100 suit for possession was dismissed as the applicant's position was unable to present the slightest evidence of the agreement of 5-6 1934 and The aforesaid agreement came in praise. The testimony of the law at 1984 of 1984 clause number the record and the courts determined the points of determination below the false allegory facts on the record whether the applicants were the owners of the suit land and that they were entitled to recover it from the respondents. According to the fact that the proprietor was proprietor did not prove in favor of the applicants and did not suggest what is the right by which the petitioners' forerunners temporarily seized the respondents, it is claimed for the applicants that the petition The defendants have no documentary evidence to prove ownership of the suit land. Found in the decisions of the courts below, the review was excluded

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012

• QAISAR MEHMOOD v. MUHAMMAD AFZAL 2012 MLD 560
• UMER SHARIF v. State 2012 YLR 561
• ARSHAD ALI v. CIVIL JUDGE IST CLASS-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, MULTAN 2012 CLC 562
• Ch. SIKANDAR ALI v. CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER 2012 PLC(CS) 563
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS v. MUHAMMAD NAZIR 2012 PCrLJ 565
• HUMAIRA HASSAN v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2012 PLC(CS) 566
• MUHAMMAD ZAFAR v. PUNJAB PROVINCIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 2012 MLD 571
• KHALID MEHMOOD v. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN 2012 YLR 571

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2012 →

online advocate from Manoabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes