Find a Lawyer

KHUSHI MUHAMMAD versus NAZIR BEGUM

Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1913 Section 30 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 115 Pre-Impression Suit Limits The date of delivery of possession under the sale of the possession was confirmed on September 28, 1969, filed on the 24th for the enforcement of the right permit. In September 1970, the vendor requested that the case be banned because oral sale was applied on September 20, 1969, and it also occupied the land on the said date, therefore, the lawsuit was filed on September 24, 1970. , Wendy didn't have one. Evidence of this in support of the occupation was not to appear as a witness of the shopkeeper in the Rift Daily Periodical Patwari, saying that he had personal information with regard to handing over the possession to a specific date because of what he had told him. Was recorded on. In the writings of the parties, the daily said that he was also denied evidence of a seller who was a party to the seller, stating that he was captured in this history when the change was confirmed. 28 September 1969) Wendy thus denied her claim that she was captured on September 20, 1969, as Wendy did not examine the fact that she was one of the material witnesses in the Wacketty vendor. The change was confirmed, there was no mention of it. Neither the date of the delivery of the occupation, nor the report given by Patwari, did not say in the written statement when the proof of the date of the sale was not established when Wendy's evidence was entered into the evidence regarding the exchange. That he got it. Prior to the approval of the changes, the seized courts were justified in holding that the seller was asked on this question on September 20, 1969. best law firm from Bhan Saeedabad lawyer