' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The appellants impugn the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dated 7-2-2009, whereby a second appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and the concurrent judgments of the two Courts below were set aside. As a consequence, the suit filed by the appellants for possession, mesne profits etc. Was dismissed. The facts of the case have been duly noted in the impugned judgment. The same, therefore, need not be reproduced in extenso.
2. The main argument advanced on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs was that the respondents/defendants were trespassers and, therefore, could not question the gift claimed by the appellants from their father Abdul Aziz. He also cited law in support of this proposition.
' We, however, note that the argument being advanced is misconceived. The appellants/plaintiffs claimed to be donees of the land. In the impugned judgment, it has been held for cogent reasons that the appellants had failed to prove the gift. In these circumstances, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and the case-law referred by him become inapplicable. The title of the father of the petitioners is also based on certain entries in the revenue record and nothing more.
The presumption in favour of the petitioners, based on Section 52 of the Land Revenue Act has been adequately dealt with by the High Court as per discussion appearing at pages 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment. The High Court has rightly disbelieved the contention that the respondents- defendants had encroached upon the land in dispute.
3. We also note that the respondents admittedly are in possession of the land since long. They have produced credible documentary evidence including correspondence from the record of WAPDA etc. To controvert the averments made by the appellants in their plaint in respect of possession. It is not for this Court to embark upon a fresh factual inquiry in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, particularly when the reasoning in the impugned judgment is neither fanciful nor arbitrary. As a consequence, this appeal being without merit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.