RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This is a petition by Ch. Muhammad Khan and others, petitioners, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 6-6-1989.
2. The petitioners instituted a suit for a declaration claiming that Ihata No. 64 in Village Abadi of Daultala was owned by one Saran Das, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, that the decrees passed on 8-10-1978 and 15-6-1981 were not binding upon the petitioners' rights of ownership, and that the respondents, who were mere owners of malba and had right of residence only in the Ihata, were not possessed of any rights to alienate the same. All the three Courts dismissed the claim of the petitioners. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court.
3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we have gone through the record and some of the documents. The three Courts have held that the petitioners were not been able to prove that the Ihata in possession of Noor and Hayat, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, belonged to Saran Das, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, and in course of time devolved on them and that Noor and Hayat were mere owners of malba. It appears that the descendants of Noor and Hayat litigated inter se regarding the said Ihata and decrees were passed in 1978 and 1981, but strangely the petitioners evinced no interest to intrude into the litigation in their capacity as owners. This conclusively shows that they themselves were not clear as regards their own title. Taking all circumstances into consideration, we do not consider this to be a fit case for interference. This petition is dismissed.