Find a Lawyer

DOST MUHAMMAD versus GUL DIN

Section 53 Civil Code of Conduct (v. 1908), Section 115 Revenue Record Plaintiff's suit for correction claims that the conversion of the parties' shares in the Revenue Record was illegal and void and was to be corrected only to the extent of the original shares. ? What weighed with the courts was that an increase from one share to two shares in favor of a defendant did not affect the property rights or the extent of the plaintiff's share, and only the plaintiff was dismissed on that score. The property in question, was created a block and had no property. Such a block can be imported, ie the block of land cannot be inflated. As the land block is permanent, the owners' respective shares in such property will enjoy the consistency factor. An increase in the total amount will result. Cutting some part of the chop off a block or part of the ground and creating the same part in the other part will result. Without adopting such methods the air cannot be raised or slipped, one of the defendants has been increased from one part to two, there should be some explanation for such increase record of such secret position. The content was too poor to explain. In the absence of a clear and unambiguous explanation, the growing share in this effect could give rise to a maze of land-related actions involved at any stage. Such a dispute should be resolved once so that each case is remanded. How the defendant's share was raised without affecting the share of a plaintiff to determine the share of the other partner and each shareholder so as to limit the share of the plaintiff in respect of land measurement advocate from Naseerabad lawyer