ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.--Petitioners seek leave to appeal against an order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 7-4-1987 passed in Civil Revision No.259-D of 1986 whereby their revision petition was dismissed upholding the appellate order.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioners claimed to have inherited land vesting in a Sikh lady namely Malan as her heirs.
The petitioners had filed a suit for a declaration in that behalf. The respondents also filed a similar suit claiming to be the purchasers of the land from an allottee. Petitioners' suit was decreed but that of the respondents dismissed by the trial Court. The respondents filed two appeals which were heard together by an Additional District Judge, Sialkot who after re-examining the oral as well as documentary evidence on the record came to the findings that Mst. Malan was an evacuee and land had been allotted and the appellants were rightful owners as purchasers from the allottee. He also took note of Ex.D-5, a copy of Mutation No.1525 dated 22-8-1967, according to which joint Khata of Mst.Malan the non---Muslim evacuee and that of the Muslims, the present petitioners was partitioned in accordance with law. He accepted the appeals vide order dated 7-12-1985. It was challenged in a revision petition before the High Court. Each contention raised was considered. The findings of the Additional District Judge that Mst.Malan had migrated to India and the property left by her in Pakistan was treated as evacuee property and allotted as such were upheld after re- appraisal of evidence on record. It was observed that the findings were not liable to be upset in revision. It was dismissed vide order dated 7-4-1987. It is this order against which leave to appeal is sought.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the respondents had not produced proof that they had purchased the land in question from an allottee, to whom it was allotted as an evacuee property. Secondly, the respondents having not claimed possession in their suit, no decree could be passed in their favour.
4. The first contention was not raised before the High Court. The second had been dealt with extensively with reference to precedents by the learned High Court. No illegality is shown in the decision. Petitioners' claim to the land in dispute is based on the plea that the property vesting in Mst.Malan, a Sikh lady, was not evacuee and they have inherited it from her, The findings by the M Appellate Court as re-examined by the learned High Court and upheld are that the non-Muslim lady had migrated to India, the property was treated as evacuee and was allotted as evacuee. The respondents purchased it from the allottee. Findings of fact not shown contrary to evidence on record are binding on the petitioners. They have no right to retain the land. Therefore, their suit had rightly been dismissed by the Appellate and Revisional Courts. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners questioning the right of the respondents to the land allotted and purchased by them is of no avail to them. They can hardly play the .Dog in the manger.
5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed.