Find a Lawyer

AHMAD NAWAZ KHAN versus MUHAMMAD JAFFAR KHAN

Under section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), section 5 suits the plaintiff for profit and Mason's profits asserts that he is the occupying tenant and then inserting his name in the columns is a false refusal of the claimant. Defendant Pro's Revenue Record for the year 1953 claim 54 proved to be the way of measles, but then in 1958 59 the name of the tenant was changed to the cultivation column, and then the year 1967 68 I, his name was present in the cultivation column of the non-entrant to the non-entrant to the tenant, after which the admission of the defaulter would change his status and other evidence in the same logan column. Cannot occupy the column with the help of. The plaintiff for cultivation or ownership was unable to make himself the owner of the suit land

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2010

• KOHINOOR LOOMS LTD. v. MCB BANK LTD. 2010 CLD 974
• MUHAMMAD KHAN v. ABDUL MAJID 2010 PLD 976
• ABDUL REHMAN v. GHULAM MUHAMMAD 2010 SCMR 978
• Syed AIZAD HUSSAIN v. MOTOR REGISTRATION AUTHORITY 2010 PLD 983
• RASOOL BAKHSH NAICH v. Syed RASOOL BAKHSH SHAH 2010 SCMR 988
• MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE v. JAMI LIMITED 2010 PLD 993
• MUHAMMAD ALTAF v. PAKISTAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 2010 SCMR 999
• DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORIYT, KARACHI v. ABDUL TOUHEED KHAN 2010 PLC(CS) 1001

All Supreme Court judgments of 2010 →

us immigration advocates from Lakimarwat lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes