Section 2 was the daughter of the plaintiff owner, who claimed to have discovered the location under two Special Courts under the Special Relief Act (of 1877), the declaration of Articles 42 and 54 and the trial court for a permanent injunction. Upon the death of his father, the suit property was transferred to his mother and after his death the property was transferred to his nephew (the forerunner in the interest of the defendants), who could not inherit the land. Because the legal heirs suit was formally ordered by the trial court and the lower appellate court according to the plaintiff's uncle's defendant's deceased mother Because the plaintiff did not live under Shiite law, victims had to be transferred to the complainant the names of the woman's property that it shows that the claimant was hidden and predecessor in interest. The defendants had become the owners of the illegally acquired land, two of the heirs were illegal and were set aside as the plaintiff was the original owner and co-owner of the suit land, each new entry in the revenue record. , Gave him the latest cause of action, and therefore, the limitation did not go against his High Court decisions and the orders given under the two courts were properly pronounced as the plaintiff. The review was rejected in favor of the situation
