1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff against the dismissal by the High Court of his civil revision. It had arisen out of a suit for declaration and possession to the effect that the plaintiff and a large number of defendants were the owners of the suit land by prescription on account of mortgage in their favour, after the lapse of period of 60 years. The main contest, it appears, was from the Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Defence and their agency. The major controversy revolves round the dispute whether the suit land (in particular Khasra No.27) could not be claimed by the petitioner on the basis of the so-called maturity of title noted above. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but the petitioner failed in the District Court and the High Court mainly on question of fact. The concurrent findings by the two higher Courts on the controversial facts having gone against the petitioner they have sought leave to appeal.
2. Realizing that the task in seeking the reversal of the concurrent findings of fact by this Court was difficult, the learned counsel tried to show that the evidence mainly documentary supported the petitioner's case. He in particular relied on the mislea haquiat and Khasra Pemash of 1872. His argument was that when put in juxtaposition (this material together with other related evidence and the report of the Commissioner) to a musavi of 1872 relied upon by the High Court, the petitioner's plea emerges as having been established.
3. We heard the learned counsel at some length and have noticed the reasoning of two learned Courts below rendering conflicting judgment. The task in such like situation of a superior Court becomes somewhat difficult but the judgment of the High Court in this behalf has properly weighed both the points of view and has adopted a reasonable approach. It cannot at all be said that the observation of the High Court in respect of the musavi was either irrelevant or is based on any misreading or non-reading. It is significant to note that the High Court also noticed that the disputed Khasra No.27 "is shown in the middle of the said compact block." This, "compact block" is undoubtedly in the ownership of the Government and has the character of a Rakh known as civil- military. We invited the learned counsel to explain this aspect also. He, to be fair to him, did offer explanation but the same could not create such satisfaction which would be enough for this Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by two higher Courts below as involved in this case.
4. In the result we do not find any force in this petition. Leave to appeal is accordingly refused.