Find a Lawyer

SHAUKAT ALI versus MST. AMEENA BEGUM

The plaintiffs' position for possession of immovable property was that the disputed house was rented to the defendant but he failed to pay the rent while the defendant claimed that he was the owner of the house suit. As well as the prosecution's case. It is pleaded by them that the defendants did not mention the month of tenancy or whether it was oral or not, no receipt was recorded in connection with the payment of rent, the trial court compared the signatures of the document. Which was not lawful under the law, both parties did not have ownership in the dispute but the matter was that the evidence of the place where the property suit house was prepared could not be accepted according to any record, without any original record. The trial court made the wrong conclusion and the orders passed by both the courts below were invalid. The cost of the law suit was excluded at the full cost

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014

• GULBAZ AMIN v. INAYAT BEGUM 2014 MLD 368
• HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, RAWALPINDI v. PUNJAB BAR COUNCIL through Vice Chairman 2014 PLD 369
• RIASAT MEHMOOD v. Mst. NADIA PARVEEN 2014 MLD 374
• Engr. GHAZANFAR ALI KHAN v. F.O.P. 2014 PLD 375
• TAYYABA KOMAL v. DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, SIALKOT 2014 PLC(CS) 378
• MUHAMMAD ADEEL JAVED v. BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY through Vice Chancellor, Multan 2014 MLD 379
• MUHAMMAD SAJID alias SHAHID v. State 2014 YLR 383
• MUHAMMAD RAUF PATWARI v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR/DCO, TOBA TEK SINGH 2014 PLC(CS) 386

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2014 →

immigration advocate from FR Kohat lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes