Jump to content

Recommended Posts

wjkk

wjkf,

bindy pajji can u tell me what good points kurta made. i just want a short summary so i can reply to him.I am not good in reading kurta's english,i think he is a professor. mehnu english thodi aundi hai because i never goto my english class. :T:

kurtas has some good points, this is not really a sikh issue. If there was hindu's also being kicked out, then this not just an attack on sikhs.

It's sad to see this happen, however, one should expect to move from from land that will eventually be taken back.

as for the video, that is something i would like too know...

155867[/snapback]

Link to post
Share on other sites
wjkk

wjkf,

bindy pajji can u tell me what good points kurta made. i just want a short summary so i can reply to him.I am not good in reading kurta's english,i think he is a professor. mehnu english thodi aundi hai because i never goto my english class. :T:

155933[/snapback]

Well... i understand the obvious anger from these clips, heck, it even made em a little angry inside, however Kurtas sis raise a point about the land being in "limbo" or "uncertain" from the beginning of the purchase. It should be noted to anyone buying a piece of property that might taken back at one point should be prepared to move out.

To make matter worse, since the courts could have been involved, yet and no legal action was taken, the results ended up being hard, yet not surprising. From waht kurtas presented, it sounds as if the land was not stable in the fist place.

What made me wonder about the video, is that why was their no video shots of the other ppl (hindu's) involved?

mind you.. that's just my opinion...

Link to post
Share on other sites
even if land is subject to litigation; even if you dont own the land; and even if you are on land illegally, under english law you still might have rights over the land

i suggest you read english land law books

156379[/snapback]

We are not talking about adverse posession. These people were not squatters. They bought land that was subject to litigation.

If you are thinking about adverse possession then things are not as clear cut as you think they are. I suggest you take a look at the ruling of the European court of human rights in Strasbourg in November 2005. (Pye v Graham)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use