Find a Lawyer

MASJID MAUZA MATHRUMA versus MAKHDOOM SHAH

There were contradictions in terms of entries in the Special Relief Act 1877 Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), Sections 115 and O VII, R11 Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XX8II of 1958), Section 10 RL II. It was shown that the land was allotted as property in exchange for the land left in India. In the ownership column, the title was recorded as a mosque, `Khmatmat Guzar was not available to show that, in exchange for the land left in India, it was confirmed in the name of the mosque. If so, which was confirmed in the name of Servant Gauzar Faqir, or, by the plaintiff, the defendant has claimed that Sajjada claims to be a narcissist, he was not authorized to administer it. There was no guardian. No claim was made on his behalf by the mosque nor by him. There is no claim made by the defendant that he is a mosque, if the property in question was of a mosque, it was in the nature of a public charity / p Mutual or a Jubilee trust suit for appointment and removal of administration. The Advocate General may have been formed by two or more interested persons in order to obtain the written consent of the Advocate General suit by Sajjad for the protection of the public charity. Was inaccessible and was badly established since its inception. The record shows that the requests were contradictory, the facts and evidence of the facts were misinterpreted and the appellate court ruled that the orders below the two courts were separate and that the plaintiff was dismissed. Was. However, if such advice is given, it is subject to Section 92, Civil Pro property advocate from Kohat lawyer