1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The dispute between the parties relates to House No. F/67-1284/8, corresponding old No. F. 133, Giddu Road, Hyderabad. The petitioner submitted his C. H. Form for the transfer of the whole house on the 7th July 1959. Respondent No. 1 is in possession of the other half of the house. She submitted her C. H. Form for the transfer of the portion in possession of her husband and herself. The petitioner was transferred the portion in his possession on the 17th November 1959, and respondent No. 1 was transferred the portion in her possession on the 19th November 1959. The matter was taken to the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who, vide his order dated the 14th June 1960, dismissed the appeal holding that both the claimants are in possession of the independent tenement with one entrance and therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the decision of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner filed revision petition against this order and the Settle--ment Commissioner, by order dated the 7th September 1960, allowed the revision and held that the house was indivisible. The matter was taken to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who by his order dated the 4th August 1961, rejected it holding that he saw no reason to interfere.
2. Respondent No. 1 challenged the last mentioned order in Writ Petition No. 794 of 1961, which was allowed on the 14th January 1965, and the case was remanded for decision to the Settlement Commissioner according to law.
3. The learned Settlement Commissioner, after hearing the parties, held that the property was divisible and restored the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated the 14th June 1960. He was of the opinion that the parties had equal entitlement and being admittedly in occupation of their separate portions, there is no room for holding that the disputed house was not divisible. This order was impugned in Writ Petition No. 174 of 1968, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, by order dated the 9th October 1972.
4. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
5. Mr. Nasir Shahmir, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the house has been divided in a capricious and arbitrary manner. It is an indivisible house and the entire house should have been transferred to the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. We have gone through the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner on the question of divisibility. He has observed as under :---- "I find from the evidence on the record and the plan Exh. 1 that two families have been living in this house since before the Independence. Admittedly both these parties are living in it since 1948. The courtyard has been and still stands divided between them. I agree with the findings of the Courts below that this house is divisible into two independent units. Both parties are claimants displaced persons, residing in this house since 1948 and possess almost equally entitlement for the transfer of their respective portion."
6. The finding of the Settlement Commissioner is based on proper appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties. Substantial justice has been done in this case. There is no ground to inter- -fere. The petition is dismissed.