Section 9 suit for claimants claimed to be the owner of the suit property, and since they were in the possession of the same plaintiff, it alleged that the defendants who were neither the owner nor the owner of the suit He remained in his possession, he said, without entering into the property without any privileges; and despite repeated demands, he was not willing to leave the said land and hand it over to the plaintiffs. Asserts that the suit property is not exclusively owned by the claimant and the fact that the suit was filed by the plaintiff's ED suit Yes. The plaintiff was dismissed and the appellate court agreed with the trial court and upheld the trial court's ruling and ruling, while claiming the exclusive title to the plaintiff in the suit land, the plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff challenged the plaintiff. had gone. Then in his pleasure he changed his position instead to that of the plaintiff, and was told that the defendants were his tenants. The latter position was without any power as it was in the plaintiff's. It was never the case that the defendants were willing tenants. Prior to the split of the suit land and subsequent change of property, the fact of the cancellation of the change was acknowledged by the plaintiffs in their evidence, when the plaintiff in the dispute was excluded from the property and the defendant took possession of it. When I entered, it was also a case in point, as it was against all the principles of justice. Capture a partner's share of the law in a different way other than rejecting a halal review request
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
