SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The petitioner, an unsuccessful defendant, seeks _leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 7-10-1980 whereby a revision petition filed by him was dismissed.
2. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents sold land measuring 219 kanals and 18 marlas in village Lidher, Tehsil and District Lahore to the petitioner and others. Subsequently additional verified claim in the name of the vendor became available against which the vendees got allotted another area of 55 kanals and 7 marlas. The successor in interest of the vendor sued fortheir title in respect of this additional land the settlement of which had been done in their predecessor's-in- interest's name but by a mutation it was got transferred in favour of the vendees.
3. The trial Court decreed the suit. The District Judge upheld the judgment and decree and the High Court refused to interfere with the finding of fact which was found to be sustainable from the record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring us to the sale deed and the plaint contended that the subsequent allotment in favour of the vendor was on the basis of a beshi and beshi was the subject-matter of the sale as there was express mention of it in the sale deed. To establish that it was beshi and not a separate verification of the claim reliance was placed on the recitals in the plaint. We found on reference to these documents that on our record the whole of the sale deed had not been placed. The photo stat copy of three pages excluding the first one had been placed on record. Similarly, when we attempted to refer to the plaint which was listed at No. 6 in the index to be found on pages 21 to 24 we found that it was a copy of the judgment of the trial Court and there was no copy of the plaint on our record. This decision, therefore, proceeds in the absence of these documents.
5. The Courts examined whether it was a mere beshi or a separate verification and held that it was a property which was not the subject-matter of sale and was not covered by the sale deed. The learned counsel could not refer to any material on the record which may so establish it. The matter, would not be so much of interpretation of the document as the determination of a fact as to what was the nature of the units which were received and against which a separate allotment was subsequently made.
6. The other contention of the learned counsel that the recital in the sale deed should be given a wide meaning to include any and every property that the vendor acquired subsequent to the sale irrespective of the source and the manner of acquisition, is without merit and is not based on the recital in the sale deed. This property which was the subject-matter of dispute was admittedly not the property of the vendor at the time when sale took place.
7. The petition has no merit and the leave to appeal is refused.