In the pre-arrest case filed by the claimant, the vendor countered the dispute that there was no customary pre-occupation practice in the area, as evidenced by the plaintiffs' pre-arrest custody of sections 4 and 7 of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1913. In which the suit property is located. Not only were the witnesses presented to prove that there was a pre-occupation practice in the area, but also a copy of the lawsuit was filed for pre-emption and court order, which A case of pre-emption filed in connection with the property in the same area was finally decided in his favor. The plaintiff / shopkeeper failed to prove that the property in dispute was located in an area where there was no pre-occupancy practice, the plaintiff proved that there was a pre-emption custody in the area in which the suit was located. Property is located, it cannot be sued for premature notice. It was ruled out that there was no customary custody in the area before
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
