1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 29-5-1985 by which a regular second appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. ' Allah Ditta a predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had brought a suit against the respondents for declaration to the effect that he is the sole owner in possession of the disputed land measuring 99 kanals 8 marlas, situated at Chak No,478/J.B. Tehsil Shorkot District Jhang and the defendants/respondents be restrained from interfering with his possession. Mst. Fatima sister of the plaintiff Allah Ditta, who was also the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, owned 1/12th share out of the 397 Kanals 11 Marlas sold her share to the plaintiff and thus he became an owner of 1/4th share equal to 99 kanals 8 marlas. The defendants/respondents being heirs of Mst. Fatima claimed the produce of their share from the plaintiff. The suit was contested and the learned Civil Judge Shorkot vide his judgment dated 5-1-1981 dismissed the suit. Appeal of the petitioners before the District Judge met the same fate and their regular second appeal before the Lahore High Court was also dismissed in limine.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners repeated the same arguments which were already advanced before the High Court. All the three Courts below have concurrently found that the sale agreement on behalf of Mst. Fatima in favour of the plaintiff has not been proved and it was also found that no consideration has been paid as no receipt to that effect was produced by the petitioners and likewise the delivery of possession on the alleged agreement to sell was not proved.
4. Mere entry of the Hisadar ownership of the plaintiff would A not disentitle the respondents to retain the ownership of the property in suit. The contention raised by the learned counsel before us is with regard to the question of fact which the learned Courts below have thoroughly examined and gave concurrent findings in favour of the respondents.
5. ' Under the circumstances, it is not a fit case for the grant of leave. The petition accordingly, is dismissed. Leave to .