1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 8-3-2000 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed the civil revisions filed by the petitioners and maintained the earlier determination made by the learned First Appellate Court.
2. ' The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of these petitions are that the petitioner Karam Ali had filed a suit for declaration on 6-1-1981 to the effect-that he was owner in possession of the disputed land since 1952-53 and took exception to the entry in Revenue Record pertaining to the year 1976- 77 wherein it was incorporated as "Hissa Batai Nisafi". The respondent Saee also filed a suit for possession on 5-4-1981 averring therein that said Karam Ali was cultivating the land as a tenant and had refused to pay the share of the produce by denying his title. It is pertinent to mention over here that Karam Ali also took a preliminary objection taking up the stance that he had become the owner through adverse possession.
3. ' Both the suits were consolidated. Issues were framed and the, parties led their evidence. The learned Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, through his judgment dated 2-1-1985 decreed the suit of Karam Ali petitioner and dismissed the suit for possession filed by the respondent Saee.
4. ' The respondent filed an appeal assailing the above judgment of the trial Court, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, through his judgment, dated 20-3-1985.
5. The petitioner filed the above civil revisions before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which have been dismissed by a learned Single Judge through his judgment, dated 8-3-2000, impugned herein.
6. Hence, these petitions for leave to appeal.
7. ' We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the documents appended with these petitions. Perusal of the record demonstrates that admittedly the petitioner was a tenant. He took waivering stances during the course of the proceedings; on the one hand he claimed himself to be the owner of the disputed property on the basis of an entry appearing in the year 1953 as "Bashrah Malkan" while on the other he claimed A adverse possession. Even in the record pertaining to the year 1952-53 he was shown as tenant-at- will and the respondent has been recorded as owner. There is no convincing evidence brought on record to substantiate his claim of adverse possession or that of ownership. Learned Additional District Judge after examining the entire record has accepted the appeal filed by the respondent, which determination has been maintained by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment.
8. ' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petitions being devoid of any merit are hereby dismissed and .##TE#