The facts against the petitioner filed for the acquisition of Article 185 (3) of the land show that his father was not in possession of special possession of the land and there is evidence that a shareholder of the land The owner, whose land found a part in the dispute, sold his share of the property to the defendant, in fact the first appellate court entered the appeal and the second appeal was not interfered with by the high court. Had refused to intervene.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
