Under sections 8, 42 and 54 of the Occupation, Declaration, and Order of Prohibition, the two courts formally ruled in favor of the plaintiff, claiming to have legally allocated the land to the plaintiff, While the defendants claimed that the fourth question in question was initially allotted in the name of a defendant and at that time it was allotted in favor of his brother, the trial court considered the allotment order which The authority had allotted the house in response to the question in favor of the plaintiff. And also ordered that the order in which the allotment in favor of the defendant's brother was canceled was not challenged or questioned by the accused's brother in order to cancel the allotment made in favor of the defendant's brother. Even the defendants had. It was submitted that the allotment order in favor of his brother, which had already been canceled and no other title deed was offered by him despite the opportunity, the defendant failed to identify any evidence on which the trial. Along with the court, the appellate court did not consider. Identified the material that was misinterpreted and the defendants did not prove any existence in favor of retaining possession of the dwelling house with them, disputing the house to their brother. Could be allotted in favor of, but due to that fact, the right of occupation would be created in favor of the defendants, especially when the allotment order in favor of his brother had already been waived by the authority. According to the defendants' own appearance, they slept without any legitimate rights
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
