Find a Lawyer

FATEH SHER versus KHANAN

The plaintiffs claimed that Schmidt owned the property on section 100 and claimed that he was the owner of the said property as ala land and that the defendants had no right or title to the land. Was seized because the trial was heard by the court on the basis of this case. Since the plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of the land, he cannot claim the order for possession even though the case for possession has been dismissed but at the same time it is held that the accused has no right to take possession of the property and So he passed a decree. Termination against them The two courts did not decide whether the question of seeking consent to bring the land under cultivation could be expressed either by consensus or from the circumstances which have been silently taken by the defendants over the years. It appears that they have consented to the defendants as plaintiffs. Occupy the land and cultivate it, on the contrary, finding the courts below was unsustainable, so, on the one hand, the defendants can neither be expelled nor removed from the land which is in question. Was accepted under the circumstances best advocate from Gari Habibullah lawyer