1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-The petitioners in all the three petitions are the unsuccessful objectors to the execution of a pre-emption decree obtained by the respondents and seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 16-10-1982 whereby their Civil Revisions against the rejection of their objections by the two Courts below were dismissed.
2. ' The disputed land is situate in village Shakardara Tehsil and District Kohat. It was, to begin with, an evacuee property which was disposed of in favour of a claimant under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. The claimants sold it to Subedar Qasim Khan in 1962. This sale was successfully pre-empted by the respondent and the effort of the vendee to protect the sale failed upto the Supreme Court. In execution of the decree the petitioners who were not parties to the litigation objected to the delivery of possession to the decree-holder on the ground that they had their pucca houses built up on the property which were constructed by them and belonged to them and they should be deemed to be transferees under Settlement Scheme No, VII as occupants of rural houses. They took a number of grounds for resisting this decree which have been enumerated ad seriatim in the order of the executing Court though riot formally given the frame of issues. After recording the evidence the executing Court rejected their objections finding that the land including the property in respect of which objections had been preferred belonged to the evacuees and stood allotted. The Civil Court could not examine the entitlement under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act or interfere with the allotments made thereunder. The petitioners were found not to have any title or interest such as may justify their resistence to the execution petitions. Their objections were, therefore, rejected. Their appeal failed and so did the revision petitions.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners could not be evicted from the land in execution of the decree because their possession had been since before Partition and they were now in possession independently of the vendee or the decree-holder. It was further contended that their objection petition should have been treated as a suit and the issues should have been framed and judgment delivered.
4. ' It is not disputed at this stage that the land over which the houses occupied by the petitioners existed belonged to evacuees and that it stood disposed of in favour of predecessor-in-interest of Subedar Qasim Khan, the vendee, against whom the pre-emptors successfully prosecuted their claim of possession by pre-emption. The petitioners did not claim from the Settlement authorities allotment nor did they obtain it prior to the allotment in favour of Maghfoor Ahmad, the predecessor-in-interest of Qasim Khan. As regards the merits of the claim preferred by them, it was found that their possession over the land existed only because they were tenants of the evacuees and in at least two of the petitions, that is, C. P. 72/83 and C. P. 73/83 the possession over these houses was as tenants of evacuees whose interest has ultimately devolved after allotment on Subedar Qasim Khan, the vendee, the sale in whose favour was successfully pre-empted by the decree-holder. It was found and correctly so that in such a situation where they had entered into possession as tenants they could not plead adverse possession nor claim the property against the real owners or his successors-in-interest.
5. ' As regards the objection with regard to the framing of the issues, we find it untenable because though, as pointed out, the issues were not formally framed, the enumeration of the grounds taken up by the objectors was as clear, formal and explicit as would have been if the issues were formally framed. Evidence was invited from both the sides and a decision given on a consideration of the evidence produced before the Court. All the submissions of the petitioners for resisting the execution of the decree were examined in depth by all the three Courts and found to be without merit. We find that these petitions do not raise any question of law such as may require further examination by this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused in these petitions.