Find a Lawyer

SOHARA versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ

The suit claimed negative possession by way of prescription for possession of land on the basis of Articles 142 and 144 Constitution Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) of the Limits Act 1908, the trial trial court granted the plaintiff's case. But the appellate court and the high court dismissed the plaintiff. The request for the occupation by prescription and the appraisal of the defendant by the respondent and his predecessor, although he had entered as the tenant of the underground land, the relevant entry also indicates that he was paying any rent. Were not paying. The Revenue Record was occupying the underground question that since 1939 the plaintiff had not pleaded that it had taken possession of the defendant as a tenant in the Revenue Record, therefore the plaintiff The forced seized state had to mention the word \ tenant's in the Revenue Record one year before filing a lawsuit, which would have no effect on the claimant's right to a landlord claim through prescription and the Appellate Court In confirming that it was true that the defendants had become the owners of the land under consideration, the circumstances permitting the appeal through negative possession were denied. Was gone property advocates from South Wazirstan lawyer