SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, a defendant in a civil suit, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 11-5-1987 whereby a regular second appeal filed by him against the concurrent judgment and decree of the two Courts was dismissed.
2. Abdul Latif respondent had purchased house No.1/262 from the Settlement Department and had obtained a PTD. He had got the property demarcated and a plan approved from the Settlement Department. The petitioner threatened him with ejectment from the premises whereupon he instituted a civil suit. The plea of the petitioner in resisting the suit was that this house was not transferred to the respondent nor demarcated by the Settlement Department and that in this manner the respondent wanted to grab the property belonging to the petitioner. Four issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties. From the PTD and the plan prepared and the demarcation, the trial Court held that house No.1/262 claimed by the respondent and house No.1/260 claimed by the petitioner were two different properties with a lane in between. A decree with costs was passed against the petitioner which was maintained in first and second appeal.
3. Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the finding of the civil Court that they had no jurisdiction to go into the question of demarcation and title as it had been decided by the Settlement Authority, is erroneous because this was eminently a suitable subject-matter of litigation before the civil Court.
4. As the title was claimed by both the parties from the Settlement Department and not only in the matter of title but also on the question of demarcation of the property following such transfer, they had agitated before the Settlement Authorities and a clear finding is available that decision is not open to scrutiny in civil Court on the factual plane. With regard to the identities of the two properties and the title in them, it appears that all the three Courts have recorded a finding which is in accordance with the evidence brought on the record and the law on the subject. There is no merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused.