GHULAM NABI versus MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ
Respondents to the Clause 42 statement filed a lawsuit for the declaration that they continue to own part of the property transferred to the appellant under the exchange agreement, which was illegal, for the relevant appellant's territory. The rules of the cooperative society have been violated. Was out of possession, the mere declaration of the case was not admissible, it was not obtained from the available possession, the defendant was transferred to the property in dispute, appellant section 30, displaced persons (compensation and rehabilitation). Became a legal tenant under the Act, 1958, because the exchange process was invalid, it did not change the status of the parties, cannot be directed to dismiss the appellant in the civil court in view of the provisions of the rent restriction ordinance. , So this was not a case where the defendant could be acquitted from the civil court. Appellant's Controversy, Without Power
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
top civil advocates from Mandi Bahauddin lawyer
