Find a Lawyer

FAZAL DAD versus JEHANDAD

The transfer of the case in the request of the claimant for the Property Act 1882 Section 54 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Sections 100 and 151, was that he had in fact purchased the underground and was handed over to his possession, But following the fraud, the defendant's counsel, who had filed the case, decided to enter a different Khasra number through the trial court, and the first appellate court also showed the evidence on record that the original case was pending. The land was sold to the claimant and he occupied the same land mentioned in the sale. The defendants / sellers who were executed in favor of the plaintiffs were not in the possession of the third party before the courts already sold, when after the proper scrutiny of the evidence, the required decree passed in favor of the plaintiff. Could not have been done To show that the concurrent conclusions of the courts were either based on any evidence or that some material evidence was not neglected or that it was based on a court admissible evidence in the circumstances, the appeal was dismissed. divorce advocates from Mailsi lawyer