' On 4-6-1980, Abdul Majid and others, petitioners filed suit for declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of the suit land measuring 6 kanals 14 marlas situate in the area of Tibbi Garey Shah, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura and Abdur Rahim the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants Abdul Waheed and others was only a Benamidar owner of the suit land, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura. As a consequential relief it was prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering in their possession of the suit land. The suit was resisted. The trial Court framed seven issues. The parties led evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 10-12-1987. The appeal filed by the petitioners against this judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sheikhupura on 27-2-1990. Hence this revision.
2. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the findings of the Courts below on issues Nos.3 and 4 which are as under:- "Issue No, 3 ). Whether Abdur Rahim deceased, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, was only ostensible owner of the suit land and factually its real owner was Abdul Hamid, the plaintiffs' predecessor and after him the the plaintiffs have stepped in his shoes? OPP Issue No,4). Is the Mutation No, 56 attested on 28-3-1973 result of collusion and fraud and thus being illegal and void is inoperative against the plaintiffs' rights? OPP
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the findings of the Courts below that Abdur Rahim, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants-respondents was not a Benamidar of the suit land is based on misreading/nonreading of the evidence and that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the case of the petitioners in its true perspective.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners with care. I do not feel persuaded to agree with him. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of the evidence by the Courts below. The Courts below were quite competent to believe or disbelieve the evidence produced by the parties. The courts below have consciously applied their mind to the oral and documentary evidence brought on the file of the suit and have given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by them. I do not see any illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictionnnnnal defect in the impugned judgments and decrees. The submissions made by the learned counsel are devoid of force and substance.
5. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine.