Section 8 of the occupation effect plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the recovery of possession claiming to be the owner of the disputed property, the plaintiff stated that the illegal occupant accused had received Rs. 3200 in this case but he was the disputed property. Has failed to evacuate the accused. The defendant claims that he had been in possession of the disputed property since 1950 55 and that he began construction on the same building about 15/18 years ago. The defendants further stated that the defendants had purchased the kayaker tree, which The money was paid to them, there is no question of the amount claimed for the seizure or the return of leave, the trial of the Appellate Court of the plaintiff on the appeal, after the hearing of the same case, the local commission trial. Allows the trial court to make a decision after receiving a recent court report. The appellate court reversed its earlier investigation, accepting the appeal, considering the local commission report set by it, and there was enough material available to establish the record of ownership and ownership of the plaintiff on the same disputed property. The record shows that the defendants had violated the controversial land, but the trial court did not apply their mind to the trial case, nor did they give their impression on the material aspects of the case. The defendants, at their own risk and cost, carried out the construction when the construction of a piece of land on which it belonged did not have any title or title to the land under the High Court. That interfered with the amended jurisdiction
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
