1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners. They succeeded in obtaining decree in a declaratory suit for possession before the trial Court. However, the appeal of the present respondents was accepted before the District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan vide judgment dated 23-1-1984. The petitioners' revision petition was also dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment.
2. ' The petitioners claim the title of the suit land through an oral sale and also on adverse possession but their counsel failed to show us any authentic evidence or documentary proof to have been placed on record, which can support their case for consideration of this Court. For the oral sale the petitioners produced only Gamoon P.W.1 who is also the petitioner in this case. He has stated that the land was purchased from Jamsheer and Gulsheer fathers of the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 about 60 years back and a report to this effect was lodged with the Patwari which was thumb impressed by the abovesaid vendors. This statement does not find any documentary or otherwise support because the Patwari has not been produced. It shows that there is no such document or entries available in the Revenue record.
3. As far as the adverse possession as claimed by the petitioners is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners are the co-sharers in the Khata and have been shown in the Hisadari possession, therefore, they cannot be said to be in adverse possession. As it is a matter of common sense that if the petitioners are considered to be in possession of the suit land through a sale, then there is no question of an adverse possession.
4. ' We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of the findings of the appellate as well as revisional Courts. In our considered opinion the view taken by the learned Judges of these Courts are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record as the same points were also raised before them upon which they have given the correct verdict and no ground has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioners for any interference by this Court.
5. ' The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. .