Find a Lawyer

SHER AHMED versus FEROZE DIN

Section 41 of the Property Act 1882 Claims for the benefit of Section 41, Property Transfer \ Act, 1882 The defendant claimed to have transferred the fere for the value of the land in question, originally the plaintiff and then allotted the property. The rights were transferred to him through confirmation of change, however, the plaintiff's parents were replaced and the registrations in connection with the wrong parentage continued till 1982 and in the sale transaction with the seller taking advantage of the fake entries. Entered (this is the name of the claimant) and allowed a change in the sale of their own name as the land originally owned The fraudulent registration of false tomatoes was hardly enough for the shopkeepers to sell such land to the defendants to deny the real owners of their rights in the land, nor is it a positive function nor a meaning. This error was found by the delinquent owners in order to enable the recorded owners to be qualified owners, the land RSS was not effectively shown to the defendants (vendors) in question. The land continued to make any reasonable inquiries about the entries in the Revenue Record to find out the exact title of the land. Therefore, to claim Section 41, the title to exchange the property act was not available to them, in the title top advocate from Taxila lawyer