The trial court dismissed the trial for recovering possession of the section 8 allegedly overrun, and the appeal filed by the defendants against the trial decision and injunction was also dismissed by the appellate court. Was. Extensions on Suit Property Both material and common pitfalls of local commissioners in the news were that the building on the Suit property was never measured. The X equivalent did not show a definite view of the construction site due to the fact of being ineligible. had gone. The measure and its full details, the appropriate area, either under the house or the rest of the suit property, were not able to be determined, it is not certain, how much of the area was in the possession of the plaintiffs. And if it was less than he deserved, who infringed it, because there were other proprietary owners who owned their built property connected to the suit property. Property details must be given to the Plaintiff for his / her identification, if the property was not identified by the measles number that the Plaintiffs would have accurately identified the enclosed area, failing to do so in the Plaintiff's case. Because of this, the restoration of their suit itself was suspicious, the cause of action was also being established and the defendants claimed that they had obtained it. The title in the suit property, through registered cell actions, but the defendants did not challenge the title deeds in the case, is another drawback to the plaintiffs of both courts, following detailed discussion on the facts and legal aspects. In this case, any illegal or b
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
