' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Petitioner Abdul Wahid seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 29th October, 1999 passed in Civil Revision No,1578 of 1997.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that dispute relates to the property which was originally transferred in favor of one Ali Muhammad, maternal-grandfather of the petitioner. P.T.D.
In respect of sale, however, was issued after his death. He was survived by the mother of petitioner Mst. Razia Begum and Mst. Sarfraz Begum, mother of respondent Pervaiz Akhtar (another daughter of Ali Muhammad) and the private respondents. A suit through petitioner as attorney was filed for partitioning and administration of the property, left by late All Muhammad, details whereof has been mentioned in the plaint, with the following prayer:-- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that decree for administration of property and partition of the property mentioned in para.1 of the plaint and other paras. Of the plaint may very kindly be passed in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants with costs."
' The suit was contested by the respondents and the Civil Judge, Lahore on 3rd November, 1994 decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff by passing a preliminary decree. Petitioner Abdul Wahid preferred appeal before the District Judge challenging the decree on the ground that on the property in dispute bearing No,SW-M-64-S-27, Umar Road Krishan Nagar, Lahore, was an evacuee property allotted in the name of All Muhammad but he is exclusive owner of the same because as far as maternal-father is concerned, he had not paid the price and he deposited the same under order of the Settlement Authority with the Board of Revenue, as such being exclusive owner, property cannot be allowed to be partitioned among all the legal heirs of Mian Ali Muhammad. The appeal filed by him was dismissed being not maintainable on 15th August, 1997. Against this order civil revision petition was filed before the Lahore High Court, which has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment dated 20th October, 1999.
3. On the previous date of hearing, notices were ordered to be issued but service has not been effected upon them.
4. Petitioner appeared in person and stated that as far as the property noted above is concerned it was not owned by late Mian Ali Muhammad as he was "Benami owner" because price was paid by him to the Settlement Authority, therefore, this property was not liable to be partitioned among his legal heirs.
5. In this behalf its is to be noted that all the three Courts have concluded that petitioner failed to establish that late Ali Muhammad was "Benami transferee" of the property and payment was made by him. Inasmuch as when he was pursuing the matter before the Evacuee Department, he had not obtained any relinquishment deed from other A legal heirs of late Ali Muhammad.
Therefore, it is quite clear that he was not exclusive owner of the property. After having gone through the judgment as well as material available on record and hearing the petitioner-in- person, we see no reason to differ with the conclusion drawn by the learned High Court by means of impugned judgment, wherein findings of trial and Appellate Courts on this point have been maintained.
' Thus, in view of above discussion, we see no force in this petition as such same is dismissed and leave declined.