' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 11-5-1988.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners brought a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding disputed property in the Court of Civil Judge, Nowshera. The suit was contested by the respondent. Various issues were framed. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court.
On appeal, the case was remanded for framing of proper issues. The trial Court again dismissed the suit. The appeal of the petitioners was also dismissed. The civil revision filed in the High Court was also dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioners were the owner of the disputed property. The entries in the Revenue Record as Ghair Dakhilkar mean a person who is in possession as the owner.
4. The Courts below have considered merits of the case and came to the conclusion that the petitioners' claim had no force. It has been held that the petitioners are tenants. The evidence on record establishes this fact that the petitioners are tenant-at-will. The entries in the Revenue Record are proper and the petitioners have failed to prove their title. The learned High Court has held that:-- "In respect of old Khasra Nos. 857 and 975, in which according to the Jamabandi of 1920-21 (Exh.P.W.2/1) available on the record the father of the plaintiffs was one of the co-sharers, Patwari Halqa Sardar Ghulam (examined in this Court) has stated that negligible area (min Khafeef) out of these two Khasra numbers has been included in Khasra No,856 in suit. Such negligible inclusion of `min Khafeef' area has to be ignored and could not become the basis of the right claimed by the petitioners-plaintiffs that they were owners of 5 Kanals 5 Marlas of land out of the disputed Khasra."
5. The record fully supports the above observations. The learned counsel has not been able to show from the record that these observations are against the record.
6. The next contention of the learned counsel is if their title has not been established they are in possession of the disputed land since long, therefore, their adverse possession has been proved.
There is no evidence to substantiate this contention. The petitioners have absolutely failed to prove that they are in adverse possession of the property in dispute. The petitioners were recorded as tenants-at-will in the Revenue Record prepared in 1947-48. It has been contended that entry in the column of 'rent' is that they were not paying rent. The column regarding the status of the petitioners is quite clear wherein they are recorded as tenants-at-will. All the Courts below have considered that this entry must prevail over any other entry and the petitioners have not led any evidence to displace the finding of fact recorded by the Courts of the competent jurisdiction. This petition has no force. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.