Find a Lawyer

AZEEM KHATOON versus MUHAMMAD AMIN

Specific Relief Act 1877 Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Application of Claims to Own OX XX X, RR 1 and 2 and Section 115 Transfer of Property Act (v. 1882), Section 54 Suite Land Claiming for Defendant and Prayer for Defamation Applicant claimed that to prevent respondents from interfering with their occupation, it was unrealistic to hold that the defendant had a change in favor, and the sale of their rights Was effective against the value of more than Rs. 100, and can be registered under section, Property, Property Transfer Act. 1882 After receiving the value of which was not registered, it was confirmed by the real owner in exchange for a prediction in the interest of the respondents, and the foregoing of the petitioners did not apply to any land during his lifetime. Did not ask questions related to sales respond Respondents were also physically seized. The foregoing proceedings did not challenge the sale of the sale which was otherwise complete, the following arts together found that the applicants did not occupy the suit land at the time of the suit and the petition filed by the applicants / defendants. This fact was also acknowledged by witnesses. The following courts did not find evidence of wrong reading or readability, nor was there any legal weakness or irregularity or judicial defect which the High Court refused to interfere with. best advocate from Kotli Loharan lawyer