Find a Lawyer

IKHTIAR MUHAMMAD versus HAJI ABDULLAH JAN

Section 42 and 54 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 2020 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 115 Jamabandi reading false news of false title entries and not reading the evidence affected the defendants in favor of the defendants and Claimed to own it. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the case. In the year 1940, the name of the property proprietor was listed in the dispute, which was subsequently prepared periodically in Jamabandis. While plaintiffs' prior entries were not challenged in the jamborees during their lifetime, the High Court did not consider the property between the plaintiffs and the defendant's predecessor to be valid in that year, 1936, for years. As such, the matter of sale was proved. The dispute was with the other property in the possession of the accused, which he claimed was purchased by the plaintiffs through their predecessors by the plaintiff's lawyer in a statement describing the sale of the property by the claimants. I have acknowledged but denied the purchase of the plaintiff's predecessor portion by the plaintiffs' attorneys. Any misreading, unread, illegal or jurisdictional finding of fact, reached by the appellate court in which review High court interference with jurisdiction was guaranteed, review dismissed Was gone best advocate from Loralai lawyer