For the settlement of sections 60 and 52 residential property, the plaintiff's application Claire's rule was that he was the owner of the suit land with the Pro-Pharma Defendants and that the defendants were mortgages based on a certified change in the case in 1926. The court dismissed the trial court's decision and appeal against the judgment and order of the trial court; the appellate court also held that the immunity suit land was mortgaged before 1878, while it was released in 1986 after a century of suit. A lawsuit was filed for The property, which was mortgaged in 1878, has been in permanent possession of the mortgage until today, through capacity mortgages, which will be considered, some of the prescriptions charged with the purchase of part of the suit land were made in 1991. , While the suit for redemption was established in 1986 while such purchase was made during the lawlessness of the suit and under Section 52 of the Transfer Facility. Under the Act of 1879, such a purchase was affected by the principle of lease pendency and would have no effect. Both the courts were verbally praised below as well as the documentary evidence that the plaintiff was unreadable and Failing to read or misunderstand justice. Justify Intervention \ r \ n
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
