Find a Lawyer

LAL DIN versus MUHAMMAD AFSAR

On the basis of the plaintiff's case that he was a co-defendant in the land under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Predatory Act, 1993, the decision of the first appeal was upheld by the High Court in the second appeal of the plaintiffs. The trial was dismissed. That he was not a partner with the seller of the suit land. The Validatee plaintiff was gifted a specific piece of land by gift, the mutation had an effect, and the area to which it was transferred was shown as Tatima, the subdivision of the original survey number. Entering the column meant displaying possession, separate measles numbers were also allotted to the claimant but such entries did not indicate distribution, the names in the ownership column had names of owners and different names of owners in this section. The shares were held in shares which included the names of the owners, the names of the shopkeepers from whom the landlord in question had purchased the land and the names of the donors from whom the claimant participated. At times the claimant was, therefore, a partner in the land under consideration, and entitled to evacuate. immigration advocates email from Mehmood Kot lawyer