GOHRAM ALIAS ALI GOHAR versus MST. ZAR BANO ALIAS ZERO
Articles 42 and 8 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 120 of the Convention of Martyrs (10 of 1984), Article 100 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), sections 39 and 52 of the suit for their declaration and possession. The scope was claimed. The suit was owned by the property and the records in the Revenue Record resulted in fraud. The suit was simultaneously dismissed. The six-year period was available for the defendants to refer to a court for the declaration of title from the date when the deposit was made. The right to complain will be submitted as soon as the relevant time to determine the time limit for filing a case is denied or the entries in the record become negative, the defendants are in possession of the suit property, Revenue recordings of unknown entries in the Revenue were not disclosed by any party The wages were not made part of the record, which was neither presented in the evidence nor marked as exhibited by E. The parties' leader said that records were recorded during the settlement 30 years ago. The effect was taken into account when the rights to register a lawsuit for the declaration would be entered or from time to time the record began with the payment of the cause of action to a party. Nor was there any record available from the date when such entry was effected, at the time when such entries were implemented in the Revenue Record, however similarly they were made 25 to 30 years ago and The evidence on record did not specify the date or period when the plaintiffs denied the plaintiffs that the records on record were not for the purpose of title deeds b.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2014
