' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) dated 3rd May. 1983, dismissing their civil revision.
2. Facts leading to this petition, briefly, are that Malik Imdad Ali Khan, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, filed a suit against the respondents seeking a declaration to the effect that he was the sole heir of Mst. Fazal Jan widow of Fatal Din, and that the respondents had no right to inherit the property in question. As a consequential relief he sought a perpetual injuction against the said respondents restraining them to receive rent of the property in dispute from the tenants. It was, however, admitted that the said property was in possession of the respondents.
3. The suit was contested by the respondents who pleaded that Mit. Fazal Jan was their step- mother and that she had gifted the property in question to them on 16-11,1968 through a registered gift deed,
4. Five issues were struck on the pleadings of the parties out of which the material issues were as follows :- AD Whether Imdad All was the only legal heir of Mst. Fazal Jan deceased and as such he is owner of the disputed property ?
(1-A) Whether Mst. Fazal Jan deceased had gifted away the disputed property to the defendants. If so, its effect ?
' Imdad Ali died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives (petitioners herein) have been pursuing the suit.
' S. The learned trial Court held the first issue against the plaintiff while it held the second issue in favour of the defendants-respondents.
' Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge on 25-1-1983. They then filed a civil revision before the High Court which, too, met the same fate.
' Hence the present petition.
6. It would be noticed that both the above-noted issues, on which the decision of the case hinges, relate to questions of fact, on which the three Courts below have given concurrent findings. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner only amounted to a request requiring us to reappraise the evidence and reverse the above-noted concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the learned lower Courts. We are afraid in the circumstances of this case we do not consider it proper to do so. Leave is, therefore, refused.