Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AZAM versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN

The case for a permanent 54 permanent injunction was that he was the owner of the suit land, while the defendants claimed that the disputed land was decided in conjunction with the land which was not divided. A permanent injunction cannot be granted against all shareholders in the estate except that a particular shareholder cannot be declared to be in the possession of any owner unless distributed by the revenue revenue authorities of Shimla Deh. If not, the plaintiffs' version was approved and they had possession of the suit land. The defendants could not produce a record of credible income in their favor. Both courts recorded their results in accordance with the law, however. , The trial court's ruling was that it should be an enforceable party and against the other no. Neither shareholders nor revenue bind authorities

Related judgments — High Court Azad Kashmir, 2014

• IFTIKHAR AHMED KHAN v. AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION MIRPUR 2014 PLC(CS) 1055
• Mst. WALAYAT BEGUM v. MUHAMMAD AFSAR 2014 CLC 1103
• SHAISTA JABEEN v. SAMMIYA MUNIR 2014 MLD 1104
• CHAIRMAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUZAFFARABAD v. KHAMDO BIBI 2014 CLC 1148
• CHINAR POWER (PVT.) LIMITED MUZAFFARABAD v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 CLD 1167
• KHADIM HUSSAIN v. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION MANGLA DAM 2014 YLR 1176
• SPINTEX LIMITED v. EMPLOYEES OLD AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION (E.O.B.I.) 2014 CLC 1281
• Ch. MUHAMMAD SHAFI v. NOOR DIN 2014 PCrLJ 1291

All High Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2014 →

solicitors from Ambela lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes