Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ANWAR versus TUFAIL HUSSAIN

The appellant stated that he had responded to the defendant by appellant, based on a canal and three-marker plot of land, based on a charge of fraud under section 1772 of the Contract Act 1872. In answer to the question for the lender, the land has been given to the landowner. The Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner canceled his allotment on the basis of the appellant's statement for his personal relationship with him and reversed the plaintiff's appellant's review request before custody was accepted and the defendant up to a maximum of 3 times his request The allotment was canceled in favor of Ali. It is requested that it move the respondents to only 1 kanal of land, not 1 kanal, 3 marla High Court, however, the Custodian's order on the basis that there was no evidence to support the allegations of fraud. The court did not prove the forgery was clearly correct, but did not provide any evidence to support the alleged forgery. Also, the measure of 1 Kanal, 3 Marla was mentioned in the affidavit by the appellant. Was made and the statement given by the appellant before the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner was restored to the same measure in the recommendation note submitted by the Assistant. Deputy Commissioner of Custodian Order for Custodian from the Commissioner made no mention of the allegation of forgery in the High Court. Justice of this case did not guarantee the order passed by Custodian. In addition, the Appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court. The statement admitted that after the allotment, the respondent had constructed such a plot on him. Pakistan, top advocate family court from Khangah Sharif lawyer