Find a Lawyer

MALIK MUNIR AHMED versus SARDAR KHAIR MUHAMMAD TAJIK

The action executed in favor of the Lease Dead Deviation Scope Lease Act for possession of the section 8 was only recorded in the record which could not produce the same title without obtaining the support of any title and the same thing as the persons of The evidence also had to be proved. The power of the transformative entries had to prove that the transfer had separated the ownership of the property in favor of the transfer and that the mutation was legally entered and the lease agreement kept by the Cantonment Board was confirmed. And no help was provided. Plaintiff's claim through documentary and oral evidence failed to substantiate her request because defendants did not own the time of their predecessor's case and the evidence presented by the plaintiff was inconsistent with each other. Had taken control of Establish that either he had inherited the property or had the remainder of his possession in the possession of the same claim and evidence could not prove fatal in the case of the plaintiff and in no case would the claim be contrary to the claim. Evidence cannot be obtained by doing or vice versa. Speaking and reviewing good rational decisions were rejected in the circumstances \ r \ n \ r \ n

Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2015

• ABDUL QADEER v. State 2015 MLD 499
• ZAHOOR AHMED v. MUHAMMAD ALAM 2015 YLR 503
• Mirza LUQMAN MASUD v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION 2015 PLC(CS) 526
• NAWAB KHAN alias DAH KHAN v. State 2015 PCrLJ 539
• The STATE through Regional Director Anti-Narcotics Force, Quetta v. ABDUL HAMEED 2015 YLR 568
• ABDUL QAYYUM v. ABDUL GHAFFAR 2015 MLD 605
• LA GUARDIA GROUP OF COMPANIES v. ABDUL NAFEY 2015 CLC 620
• MOHAE-UD-DIN v. The STATE through Prosecutor-General Balochistan 2015 PCrLJ 621

All Quetta High Court Balochistan judgments of 2015 →

how to become a advocate from Chishtian lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes