1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioners who were unsuccessful as defendants against Yar Muhammad, a member of their family, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 15-9-1979 whereby their regular second appeal was dismissed.
2. Yar Muhammad respondent claimed to have purchased from his father an immovable residential property in village Taunsa Shareef. It was by a registered deed, dated 25-10-1950. He instituted a civil suit in the year 1967 seeking possession of it on the ground that his step-mother petitioner No. 1 and his step-sisters petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were in permissive possession of the same. The suit was contested by the petitioners on the ground that it was barred by the and that the petitioners have become its owners by adverse possession for over twelve years. These pleas prevailed with the trial Court and the suit was dismissed. On appeal the District Judge held that the possession of the petitioners was permissive throughout and not hostile in derogation of the rights of the plaintiffs. He held the suit to be within the and decreed it for possession of "part of the house" starting from "the common wall of Rooms Nos. 2 and 3 at site plan Exh. D.W.512 and its boundary shall run straight in the south upto Koocha Mahmood Khan." The petitioners went up in appeal against the judgment and decree but the findings were affirmed and their appeal was dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the first appellate Court has gone outside and beyond the pleadings of the plaintiff-respondent and made out a new case for him.
4. He has reiterated his submissions that the suit was hopelessly the-barred and the petitioners had acquired an indefeasible right on account of the adverse possession for over twelve years.
5. Not only that a concurrent finding of fact is against the petitioners but we find that in view of the relationship between the parties and their joint residences at the the when the sale in favor of the plaintiff-- respondents was made and afterwards the conclusions drawn by the first appellate Court and the High Court are sustainable. In specifying the property, the learned District Judge has gone by the boundaries indicated in the registered sale-deed in favor of the plaintiff -- respondents.
6. There is no such question of law as may require further examination in this Court. Hence leave to appeal is refused.