Find a Lawyer

ISRAR ALI versus AKHTAR ALI

Section 42 of the plaintiff's claimant claimed that they had permanent possession of the suit land that their owner had sold to them, on the other hand, the defendants claimed that they had inherited the suit from the property owner. Permanently listed the owner on the revenue record. After the trial court recorded the cases arising from the parties 'requests and the parties' supportive and contradictory evidence, the claim filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed, which was retained by the appellate court's failure to exclude. ? Their burden cannot be interfered with by the High Court in reviewing the records of the courts below on the basis of record, based on the evidence.

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011

• NOREEN SULTAN v. Prof. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN KHAN 2011 PLC(CS) 16
• Mst. WAGMA v. SULEMAN 2011 MLD 18
• Mst. NISHAT alias SHATO v. MUSLIM KHAN alias MUSALI 2011 PLD 23
• AKHTAR ALI KHAN, S.I.O. v. AFSAR ALI KHAN 2011 YLR 27
• MIRZA MUHAMMAD v. MUHAMMAD SHFRIN 2011 PLD 41
• NADIR KHAN v. IMAM GUL 2011 CLC 42
• SARDAR SHAH v. State 2011 MLD 45
• KHAN ZAMAN v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad 2011 PLD 47

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2011 →

best advocate from Sohawa District Jelum lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes