1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs side in a suit for declaration; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision. Earlier their suit and appeal before the District Court stood dismissed.
2. The petitioners claim to be the Adna Malikan in the land in dispute, which is stated to be Shamlat Deh. Their claim that on account of this factual position they became full owners by virtue of the provisions of M.L.R. 64 enforced in 1959, has not been accepted mainly on the ground that the suit land stood partitioned in 1956 and at the time of the enforcement of the said law there was no such entry or possibility of treating the land as under the Adna Malkiyat of the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the basic pleas raised in this case have not been considered. Firstly, the petitioners' position of being Adna Malkan could not be changed into Ghair Dakhilkaran; that the alleged partition without associating the petitioners as Adna Malkan of the land is neither binding on the petitioners nor relevant for the disposal of the petitioners' suit; and lastly, that the said partition or consolidation of holdings which purported to have changed the position would not change the entry from Adna Malkan to Ghair Dakhilkaran. If it is so held to be invalid the same would lose its importance as deciding factor in this case.
4. Learned counsel for the caveator tried to confidently assert that there was never an entry of Adna Malkan in favour of the petitioners, therefore, there is no basis at all for the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. On this learned counsel for the petitioners showed some entries from his brief to learned counsel for the respondents to which the latter replied that they were not of binding character nor were they in accordance with the real facts. Be that as it may, the question; whether. The petitioners were entered as Adna Malkan in the record of rights or other Revenue Record which entries were changed subsequently; and whether, such change was unlawful; and lastly, if so what would be the effect of such change, would require examination. We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal.
5. Security Rs.5,000.
6. The appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all essential documents which would be necessary for disposal of appeal.
7. The application for interim relief having earlier been dismissed on 14-6-1989, the petitioners may, if so advised, file fresh application in that behalf provided no change of position has taken place for the last about three years.