' TANVIR AHMAD KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 27-3-2000 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision filed by the petitioner and maintained the earlier determination of the learned Additional District Judge whereby he had set aside the judgment and decree dated 23-2-1993 of the learned Civil Judge, Arifwala and accepted the appeal filed by the respondent through his judgment dated 23-11-1995.
2. Facts briefly are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a declaratory suit to the effect that they were owners in possession of the land measuring 16 Kanals bearing Khasra Nos.39/23 and 39/24 in Khata No,50/53 of Village Kot Mohar Singh of Tehsil Arifwala on the strength of the sale effected between the parties on 29-11-1989. This plea was contradicted by the respondents-defendants.
Issues were framed. Parties led their evidence and the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Arifwala through his judgment, dated 23-2-1993 decreed the suit. Mst. Khurshid Bibi respondent No,2 filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge through his judgment, dated 23-11-1995. The revision petition filed by the petitioners against the same was, however, dismissed by a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment. Hence this petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties for quite some time and have gone through the documents appended with this petition.
4. The perusal thereof demonstrates that admittedly it was a joint Khata and Muhammad Ismail respondent being in joint possession of property with others had not sold the specific Khasra numbers to the petitioners. The petitioners had purchased 16 Kanals of land but, not with specific numbers. In this view of the matter the petitioners cannot lay their claim to the specific numbers. It is rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court that Muhammad Ismail respondent had only conveyed his interest in the joint Khata through afore-mentioned sale-deed and as a consequence thereof the petitioners had also become joint owners along with other Khatadars.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any misreading or non- reading in the impugned judgment calling interference by this Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. .