Find a Lawyer

JAN SAID versus KARIM DAD KHAN

Sections 2 (i) and 49 (3) of the Civil Procedure Codes (V of 1908), section 115 of the House, are part of the homeowner population, whether land or not applicable to civil courts \ jurisdiction under section 2. The purpose for the agriculture under consideration was (i) the direct purpose of Act XXV of 1950, for which the occupier was occupied by the owner or the owner was living in the house in question, Was considered or will be paid by. There can be no doubt that the owner's agricultural purpose was calculated to promote, but the purpose of the occupier cannot be claimed to be subservient to agriculture or agriculture. The defendants, along with their written statement, filed a Defendant's statement was also denied. , That they were occupying the house in connection with the payment of Khakashura; if the defendants had contended that they were paying for the occupation of the house, then their occupation should be considered to promote agriculture. I pursue the plaintiffs, but they cannot be allowed to deny the claim that the purpose of the occupation of their home was underground, the house under question was subject to agricultural occupation, without any purpose. Depending on agriculture, this will remove it from its appreciation. `Land 50 as listed in section 2 (i) of the Act (XXV of 1950). Therefore, the plaintiff's case did not fall within the purview of clauses (c) and (f) of the second group of section 49 (3) of Act XXV of 1950, which was recognized by the civil court, committing any judicial error. Had not happened The courts below were kept under jurisdiction under the jurisdiction of the courts patent advocate from Panjan Kisan lawyer