MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-Leave is sought to appeal against the judg--ment and decree of the Baluchistan High Court, Quetta passed in Civil Revision No. 56 of 1980 on the 13th September, 1982. The petition is barred by 71 days but we allowed the petitioners' counsel to formulate his con-- tentions and address the Court on merits.
2. According to the petitioners' case a suit was filed by them for pos--session of 1/2 share of land in dispute inter alia on the ground that the father of the plaintiffs/petitioners and father of the defendants/respondents wire real brothers and as such the petitioners were entitled to 1/2 share of the joint property left by their fathers. The suit was resisted by the res--pondents on the ground that the suit land belonged exclusively to their father Isa Khan who had given the same in Haqq a Mehar (dower) to their mother in the presence of Chakkar father of the plaintiff's/petitioners. Since the land was in possession of the respondents during the lifetime of Chakkar and he cover raised any objection or brought out a suit against Isa Khan or his wife for possession. 1sa .Khan died, according to the evidence 25 years ago. Before his death he had sold the same land to one Peero but this was challenged by a suit brought by the mother of the respondents which was decreed in her favour as the suit- land was held to be her property. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, challenged this finding and contended that the lower Courts have failed to appreciate that the land in question was an ancestral property and was not partitioned and, therefore, the suit was not barred by time that the possession of one co-sharer is the possession of other co-sharers and the principle of adverse possession would not apply in the present case.
3. We have examined the points raised by the learned counsel and find that the facts brought on the record do not support the petitioner's case. The Court of Qazi at Turbat (Baluchistan) had gone into the questions and bad found that the petitioners never had any subsisting right in the property in question. The same is the finding of the learned High Court Judge. The contentions raised by the learned counsel are not ten--able. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed,