KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-This is a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 3-2-1979, whereby a civil revision application No. 127/79 which had been filed for challenging the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, dated 26- 10-1979, was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are few and simple Mst. Razia Begum and others (hereinafter called the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of one half share of a common courtyard of the houses bearing Nos. 210 and 210-A, situated at Chuhar Harpal, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi. The suit was contested and on the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the necessary issues, which so far as relevant, are reproduced below :--
(1) Whether the disputed site is joint property of the plaintiffs and the defendants ?
(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, what is the share of the plaintiffs in the disputed land ?
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get this land partitioned ?
(4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------..
(5) Whether the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs has already sold his share in the suit property ?
(6) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------..
(7) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------..
(8) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------..
It may be mentioned that the present petitioner who was the sole defendant in the case had also filed a cross-suit claiming a declaration that he was the sole owner of the suit property which included houses and courtyard, etc. The learned trial judge on the pleadings of the petitioner framed an issue being issue No. 7, which read as "whether the defendant is entitled to a decree for declaration and injunction prayed for in the other suit 7" On issue No. 1 it was held that admittedly the houses Nos. 210 and 210-A have been con--structed upon the land which originally belonged to one Alawal who was the common ancestor of the parties and devolved upon the parties in equal shares. Taking the aforesaid finding, to its logical conclusion, it was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to get the land partitioned and that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs had not sold the suit property. Issue No. 7 was decided against the present petitioner and consequently in the suit of Mst. Razia Bagum and others a preliminary decree was passed accordingly on 27-6-1964.
The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 26-10-1978. His revision in the High Court also met the same fate and was dismissed on 3-2-1979. Hence this petition. Here it may be pointed out that all the Courts below affirmed the findings on the issues hereinbefore mentioned.
3. When asked as to what was the error of jurisdiction in the judgments and orders of the Courts below which warranted interference by the High Court under section 115 of the C. P. C. The learned counsel submitted, that there was no proof that the property in dispute was a joint property or that the plaintiffs had any share or to be more precise -- share therein. The con--tention has no merit.
The finding on the subject in hand was recorded, it appears, inter alga after going through the pleadings of the petitioner in his own plaint where he had made pedigree-table of the relationship of the parties which was perused by us. The petitioner had in his own plaint pleaded that the land in dispute belonged to the common ancestor of the parties namely, Alawal. It was in this context that the learned trial Court observed and held as quoted in the passage reproduced above. When confronted with this situation the learned counsel submitted that the respondents had no share claimed in the property in dispute as to be a joint property and that their suit was confined merely to the rights in the courtyard. This is not correct. It may be mentioned that both the suits were consolidated and whereas present petitioner claimed the sole ownership in the entire estate left by Alawal, the respondents claimed the same only to the extent of their share therein. The orders and judgments by the Courts were as such rendered by keeping in view the overall pleadings of the parties and thus suffered from no error. The High Court went through the pleadings of the parties and after attending to the overall facts and circumstances found nothing wrong in the concurrent view recorded by the two Court below on the subject in hand. The finding recorded by the Courts below were essentially one of the fact and on our part we have not been able to find out any error of jurisdiction which could have warranted interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdic--tion under section 115, C. P. C.
4. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.