Find a Lawyer

IJAZ AHMAD KAMRAN versus MST. ZUBAIDA BIBI

Articles 8 and 42 of the Declaration, Occupation and Masonic Profit through Dividend Plaintiffs held that the suit property was owned by their late father and that the death of the deceased widow was recorded. / 12 was divided and the balance was property divided into other legacies inheriting from his will he gave his widow 5/12 instead of 1 / 8th which he would be entitled to under the law of inheritance by the trial court. Has basically ruled out the case that it was stopped by. The appeals filed by the plaintiffs were partially accepted on the condition that the declaration challenging the testamentary to the extent of 5/12 in favor of the deceased widow was banned, while the division case and Mason's profit was ordered Defendant's lawyer was unable to show why there would be no lawsuit or a restriction in such a situation. Maison will also be true of the profit claim, the plaintiff's dispute was accepted and the plaintiff was entitled to a distribution and Maison's profit as a co-owner of the property in the dispute.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• ABDUL RASHID ANSARI v. JAZZ MOBILINK CO. through Director Engineer 2010 CLC 739
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN v. Ch. MUHAMMAD SHARIF 2010 CLC 740
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER 2010 MLD 741
• SAUDI PAK COMMERCIAL BANK LTD v. UMAR BILAL (PVT.) LTD 2010 CLD 741
• JAMAL DIN v. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ 2010 MLD 743
• MUHAMMAD ADNAN v. DR. BASHIR AHMED 2010 CLC 744
• GHULAM ABBAS v. EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (HEALTH), GUJRAT 2010 PLC(CS) 744
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM v. DIL MORE 2010 CLC 746

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Mingora lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes