KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--Tufail Ahmad, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a suit for possession of the property in dispute which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge on 26th May, 1969. The defendants/petitioners filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 1st ,April, 1974. The petitioners then filed a regular second appeal being R. S. A. 164/1974 which was dismissed by the High Court on 7th July, 1975. The petitioners have now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the finding of the Courts below that the property in dispute belonged to the plaintiff respondents by virtue of P. T. D. Issued to him was not correct. This is a question of fact and has been thrashed out by all the Court below and cannot be reopened specially when the learned counsel ha not been able to point out any omission or misreading of evidence. It may be mentioned that the precise portion in dispute is the roof or the barsati over the shop which stands transferred to the plaintiff Tufail Ahmad. It is obvious, that unless otherwise mentioned the transfer of the shop would mean the transfer from bottom to the sky, as is the position in this case.
3. The result is that the petition has no merit and is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.