' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 26-3-2003 whereby the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed the Regular Second Appeal bearing No,1 of 2003, filed by the petitioners maintaining the determination of the Courts below i,e, the learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura.
2. We need not to give facts of the case as the same have been amply narrated in the impugned judgments of the learned Courts below.
3. The crucial point in this case is whether the disputed property was allotted to Mst. Fatima Bibi, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents as a limited owner or not. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners filed a declaratory suit taking exception to the registered sale-deed dated 13- 7-1966 on the ground that Mst. Fatima Bibi being limited owner was only entitled to the 1/4th share and the remaining 3/4th should fall to the share of the petitioners being collaterals of deceased Fateh Muhammad, the husband of Mst. Fatima Bibi.
4. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the earlier round of litigation, the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, remanded the case to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura with the direction to frame issues on the basis of the amended pleas and decide the suit afresh. On remand, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 11-10-2001. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, through his judgment, dated 11-1-2003. The regular second appeal, filed against the same was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment dated 26-3-2003.
5. We have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the documents appended with this petition.
6. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial Judge after remand of the case in R.S.A. No,913 of 1968, did not proceed in accordance with the direction of the High Court, is devoid of the force. It is reflected from the record that the petitioners themselves did not press for any additional issue. The crucial point as already stated in this case was title of the disputed property. It has come on record through evidence that she filed an independent claim in her own right and secured allotment not as a limited owner but as a full owner. In the presence of this determination the framing of fresh issue to determine whether the petitioners were collaterals loses all its force. It was not rightly asked by the petitioners themselves. The petitioners could only claim the property if allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents as a limited owner as in that eventuality they would have been entitled to 3/4th share as collateral but in this case as concurrently held by the learned subordinate Courts which determination has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Mst. Fatima Bibi secured her allotment as a full owner. This crucial issue has been determined by the learned Courts below, by advancing cogent reasons.
7 . Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any misreading or non-reading in the evidence available on the record calling interference in the impugned judgment.
8. Resultantly, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly, dismissed and .