1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is from an order of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dismissing a second appeal.
2. The property in dispute is Katri Dinanath at Beadon Road, Lahore, claimed to have been purchased by respondent No. 1, Ali Ahmad Khan. Respondent No. 1 brought a suit against the petitioner for a declaration that the former was the owner of the property and the latter, her mother Mst. Gulzar Begum (respon--dent No. 2) and Muhammad Sharif, respondent No. 3, be restrained by a perpetual injunction from managing the property. The property had originally belonged to a Hindu named Lala Dina Nath Mohra who, on 15-9-1947, declared that he had embraced Islam and had assumed the name of Sheikh Din Muhammad. He is said to have married respondent Gulzar Begum and out of this wedlock was born petitioner, Mst. Razia Sultana. At the time of his conversion he had a Hindu wife and one daughter and 3 sons by her, including Ram Krishan. Ram Krishan too, embraced Islam, about a year after his father's conversion and assumed the name of Sheikh Riaz Ahmad. Sheikh Din Muhammad died on 7-2-1957. Respondent Ali Ahmad claims to have purchased the property in dispute under a registered sale deed dated 7-6-1962, from Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, as the sole heir of his father. The petitioner on the other hand claims to have got the property from her father Sheikh Din Muhammad under an oral gift inter vivos accompanied by delivery of possession in her favour. It may be mentioned here that subsequently the petitioner alternatively claimed that she inherited the property from her father, the said Sheikh Din Muhammad, who had married respondent Mst. Gulzar Begum, mother of the petitioner. This alternative case, however, finds no mention in the written statement filed by her in the suit, and was consequently not considered by the High Court. The suit was contested mainly by the petitioner.
3. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4, although they put in appearance at the initial stage, subsequently ceased to appear.
4. Both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently found that Sh. Riaz Ahmad was the sole heir of his father, and that he validly sold the property in dispute to respon--dent No. 1. Both the Courts, inter alia also concurrently found that Sh. Din Muhammad did not make any valid gift of the property in favour of the petitioner, nor she was otherwise in adverse possession of the property so as to have acquired title therein by prescription.
5. It appears that respondent Ali Ahmad is in physical possession of the property and that the petitioner merely claims to be in possession through attornment by tenants. The petitioner relies on an alleged agreement D. W. 2/1 dated 2-7-1954, executed by Sh. Din Muhammad in support of the oral gift. In this agreement it was stated that the said oral gift had been made and the necessary entries would be made in the Municipal records.
6. In rebuttal of the oral gift, respondent No. 1 relied on a rent note dated 10-8-1966 Exh. P. A., executed by respondent No. 3, Muhammad Sharif in respect of the disputed property in favour of Sh. Din Muhammad permitting the lessee to sub-let the premises. This lease remained in operation till the death of Sh. Din Muhammad and is not seriously challenged. This militates against the petitioner's case of oral gift of the property. Respondent also relied on a copy of entry dated 26-1-195) in the Register of stamp vendor Exh. P. 6/ 1 2 to challenge the existence of oral gift, Exh. P. 6/ 12 shows that Sh. Din Muhammad purchased stamp of the value of Rs. 748 for execution of a gift in favour of the petitioner. This entry too negatives the oral gift claimed by the petitioner. There is also no writing to show that the tenants of the property were ever asked to attorn to the petitioner or that they actually attorned to her. On the contrary copies of Assessment Exh. P. C. For 1954, Exh. P. W. 6/9 and Exh. P. W.6/10 uptill 1958 and of jamabandi P. W. 6/13 for 1957-58 show that the property continued to stand in the name of deceased Sh. Din Muhammad himself in spite of the alleged promise in the agree--ment D. W. 2/ 1 that he would get the necessary entries made in favour of the petitioner in the Municipal records.
7. Having regard to these facts and circumstances not only is the High Court right in concurring with the findings of the two Courts below in respect of the non-existence of the oral gift but A also the High Court evidently lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the said concurrent findings of fact.
8. We thus see no reason for interference with the impugned order of the High Court and the petition is, accordingly, dismissed.