' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.--Respondents are heirs of Muhammad Ramzan who was transferred a House No, P-521, situate in Toba Tek Singh. Adjacent property No, 522/2, was transferred to one Fateh Muhammad who sold it to Abdul Ghani and the later in his turn sold it to the petitioners. The respondents filed a civil suit saying that the petitioners had encroached an area measuring 2-1/2 Marlas of the House No, P-521 transferred to their predecessor, Muhammad Ramzan and for recovery of the said area. It was resisted by the petitioners. On the basis of the evidence on the record, the learned Civil Judge, Toba Tek Singh came to the conclusion that the claim of the respondent was correct and he decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 9-3-1985. On petitioners' appeal, the evidence was re-appraised by the learned Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh, who upheld the finding of the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 8-3-1986. The petitioners filed Civil Revision No, 818-D of 1986 which has been dismissed in limine by a learned single Judge vide order dated 5-4-1986.
2. The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the aforesaid orders.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the transfer price of the house transferred to the petitioners' predecessor-ininterest and the one transferred to Muhammad Ramzan whose successors-ininterest are respondents was the same, therefore, the area of the houses transferred to the two transferees should have been found to be equal. The finding to the contrary by the three Courts below is erroneous.
4. Contention is devoid of force. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record had come to the conclusion that the petitioners had encroached on an area of 2-1/2 Marlas of the house transferred to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest. The evidence was re-appraised on appeal and the finding was upheld. The finding was not shown to be suffering from any misreading of evidence, therefore, it was not displaced in revision by the learned single Judge. Concurrent finding of fact by the three Courts calls for no interference. No point of law is involved. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.