Section 42 of the Punjab Kachi Settlement Act (Hashtam 1992 of 1992) provided that the plaintiff's Section 7 suit sought that the plaintiff, in the interest of the defendant, his relative, should leave the predecessor in a room in his house in December, 1978 Allowed, however, during the plaintiff's. The absence of the city for six months, said that the predecessor took possession of the entire house and refused to enter the claimant's house upon his return from the village. The defendants have occupied the mortgage and sale deeds since 1978. And claimed ownership. Implementation of their right by the municipal committee defendants claimed that the suit land was located in a densely populated area and the municipal committee was empowered to allocate occupants to such land. The deciding factor was the termination of the dispute because the occupants of the disputed land could only be given proprietary rights while the defendants had not been established by any credible evidence of mortgage-based property claims. The sale proceedings registered during the trial were the result of a plaintiff's affidavit. The relevant plaintiff was a minor at the time and in 1973 the plaintiff purchased the plaintiff, the controversial, controversial property structure and remained in possession until 1978. Defendant was the occupant of controversial property on 1 1 1 1978 and subject to rights. As a plaintiff so that they cannot claim proprietary rights because they did not own the property, the defendant cannot claim ownership of any property in the plaintiff because of the minor at the relevant time. After the disputed property has been established in the relevant date,
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
