MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.--- The suit for possession filed by the respondents against the petitioners was.
Dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 25.05.1995 holding that they have failed to establish their exclusive ownership to the suit property, but on appeal of the respondents, which was accepted on 15.01.2000, the judgment and decree of the learned That Court has been set aside and the suit stands decreed.
2. ' The very brief facts of the case are, that on 05.09.1989, the respondents brought a suit claiming to be the owners of the suit land measuring 3 Kanals and 17 Marlas, fully described in the title of the plaint, and stating in paragraph No. 2 that they had rented out the same to the petitioners. Who have denied their title to the property and also refused to give the possession thus, they have become. The trespasser. The petitioners contested the suit and in paragraph No. 2 of the written statement, on merits, they claim to be the owners of the suit property as against the ownership of the respondents. Issues were framed, parties were put to trial and the learned Civil Judge, while returning his findings on issue No.1 i.e. "Whether the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit land", dismissed the suit holding that it is shown form Ex.P-1 that the respondents are the so-sharers of the property "to the extent of 5/66th share and their ownership comes to 11/2-Marla". On appeal of the respondents, which was accepted, the findings of the Trial. Court, as mentioned earlier, have been set aside. The learned Court of appeal, on the basis of the other evidence on the record ;and considering Ex.P.1, has come.
To the conclusion that "In fact the mutation including this khasra number. It also speaks that area purchased was 3 kanals, 19 marlas. The present khasra number was consisting of 3 kanals, 17 marlas and the same remained in possession of the plaintiffs in pursuance of this sale as owners.
Ex.P.1 Khasra gridavery reveals the same fact".
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, when questioned has conceded that the land purchased by the respondents comes to 3 Kanals and 17 Marlas, but it is reiterated that the petitioners are also the co-sharers in the same Khewat. However, when further questioned to establish their defence of co-ownership, nothing has been pointed out to show if the petitioners are the co-sharers of the land in question. Resultantly, I do not find any error in the judgment and decree of the learned Court of appeal. This petition thus, has no merits and is hereby dismissed.
Civil revision .