Find a Lawyer

ABDUL FATEH versus ABDUL SATTAR

There is no other evidence in the record except for the mention of Sarai in the case of sale of property for sale of property before the North-West Pre-Emission Act, 1950 sections 5 and 7, to show that the property purchased was for Sarai. Was also used or used as such. Either at the time of the sale transaction or partially by a relevant authority to show that the property contained in it was never used because the inn was presented to Wendy as well. Even the court did not say a word about the use of the suit property in this statement. Since Sarai also showed at the time of his sale or at any time before the local commissioner's report that the property owned by him was not recorded, it also does not indicate that the provincial government had any powers under section 7. In the case of land or sale, the plaintiff did not claim that he purchased the and / or property to construct a house for his possession for the exemption claim under Secuto. Is. N5 (c) (d) was with the burden of proof of the Act claiming to be exempt before the proof and unless it was established legally, this property is subject to any provision of section 5 Comes in, it couldn't be pre-copyright. Wendy's failure to bring her case within the scope of section 5 of the Act, the suit was not an exception to the land, again discriminating list of supreme court advocates from Kalar Syedian lawyer