In this regard, the plaintiffs' interests in the interest of the defendants and the Sections 42 and 54 for the permanent injunction are that the plaintiff owns 5/6 of the disputed property while the defendants own up to 1/6 share. ? That and that the defendants had acquired the alterative property in their favor to deprive the plaintiffs of their alleged share. Plaintiffs filed suit by filing a written statement The trial court turned the plaintiffs' appeals court case, on appeal, to stable decisions to the same extent that it disputed property in favor of the shopkeepers through one of the defendant's legal heirs. The transfer of 1/6 share was legal, lawful and legal and the remaining disputed property must transfer from the total property to 5/6 share. By justifying the remaining legal heirs of the deceased, no one can get a better title in the property than the 1/6 of the shares of the purchasers of the land owned by the disputed property were valid and the rest of the transfer limit So far, that is, 5/6 share was not valid and valid in favor of the buyers because some of the legal heirs had transferred their share. There is no illegal interference or irregularity, misrepresentation or evidence of readmission by the appellate court in favor of the buyers, the High Court dismissed the request for review.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
