Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASLAM versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL

In the Property Act 1882 Section 54 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), the change in the certification limit in Article 120 factum was entered into mutation batch and it was affirmed by his father in favor of a brother, the plaintiff was hereby The same brother who had appeared before objecting to the conversion of the same brother was confirmed by his brother in connection with the change in the sale in favor of him, namely, the defendant in whose favor the question was changed. Was reinforced by the fact that the plaintiff did not object to the defendant's change in view of it. In the case of the documents, the mutual understanding under which he (the plaintiff) became the landlord who owned and owned the defendant, and thus, the plaintiff in his statement countered his claim that he had made the change. After confirmation, the defendant made his claim with the defendant. In question, he did raise the construction that the fact that such a construction was not objected to by the claimant would go a long way to prove his dismissal, regarding his claim, If a mutation was confirmed in 1971 and the plaintiff complied with it: the same and its construction failed to raise the objection within six years, the defendant's case after six years of his knowledge Was listed. Thus, the obligation to be banned and to be left alone on this earth family advocate from Kech lawyer