Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1913 Section 15 Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115), Para 25 Pre-Impression Suit Vendors / Sons asserted their right to take pre-notice of the vendors in defense and rented the land in question premieres / suit. Demanded the right to duty. On the evidence of his seller being the son, it was ruled that the High Court court's evidence presented by the shopkeepers on Estoppel's question was retained, not merely that the presence of pre-emptors at the time of its sale. Was contradictory but contradictory. There was no evidence to show that the sale consideration was paid on the participation of the pre-emperors at the time of sale that neither of them had signed the sale agreement document or the sale agreement. But their right to prefer was not denied. Prior to the fall of MLR 115, the decisions of the courts below showed that this request was not seriously pressured, although in a written statement, such a request was made, but no Evidence not fetched. In order to establish their tenancy on the land, the seller's son was admitted not only by the shopkeepers in the written statement, but also by the vendors who testified in the case, because they had confessed to the seller. Appeals against the order were dismissed without merit
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
