Find a Lawyer

GUL NISA versus MUHAMMAD ARIF

Section 54 of Title 18 of the Property Act 1882 was removed by the court on the basis of the limitation on the purchase made by the claimant and the claimant claimants on the possession. In order to get into the question, and the nature of such land should have been determined, if the defendants had the title taken by them for purchase, they would have considered the possession of the land as arid ancient. Finding the aspect could be recorded and it determines the full and complete nature of the cause of action, the available time limit and the rights of the parties in the property where either party owns the property. In contrast, a simple entry in the revenue record is not required. Although there was some positive danger to the party's occupation and title, however, the cause of action could have arisen when the tube well was being mounted and the question of its use and custody arose, Therefore, the question of this limitation should have been known, after that, the question about its possession and its nature had to be then drawn to the facts of the boundary. The Supreme Court remanded in the High Court. solicitors from Bahawalnagar lawyer