Find a Lawyer

SANTA KHAN versus SULTAN

Specific Relief Act 1877 Section 42 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 142 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 115 Applicant Title Claims to occupy the shop under the title while the courts below dismissed the respondents' statements. Was announced based on an oral purchase or alternatively a prescription title. No documentary evidence was presented by the applicants to substantiate their claim so that the tenancy between the parties existed, the oral evidence presented by the applicants was not only confusing but also contradictory. One of their witnesses acknowledged that defendant 19 had occupied the shop in the dispute since 1964, therefore, contradicting the applicants - claiming that the property was rented to the plaintiff only eight years ago. Taken, it supported the claimant's possession in the plaintiff from 1964 to 1977. Owned by the owner as a result of the purchase, such entries were never challenged for two decades in jumbo tuners were presented to provide no evidence that the defendant ever claimed the defendant's declaration According to the record, based on the evidence, the two courts below were not found to have misread or misread any material evidence. Cannot add fact finding to evidence based on evidence on record immigration advocates contact from Jehangira lawyer