1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration that they are the owners through adverse possession of the suit land, have called in question the dismissal by the High Court of their Civil Revision.
2. The petitioners' case was that they are continuously in possession since the end of the last century and that they never paid any Batai, nor did they acknowledge the ownership of the respondents who claimed to be the owners.
3. Thus, the plea of adverse possession having been raised, all the learned Courts below rejected it, as contended, on account of misreading of evidence.
4. It is mentioned in the judgments of the learned lower Courts that the entries in the Revenue Record also indicated that the petitioners were entered as tenants and/or occupancy tenants several times. The exhibited documents have also been referred to in this behalf. When called upon to show any misreading, learned counsel simply stated that the entries in the relevant exhibited documents are not the same as noted above; but, he has not been able to co-relate any document placed on the record which might have shown that the documents Exh. P.1 and Exhs. P-5 to P-8 have been, in any way misread. Accordingly, the onus being very heavy on the petitioners to prove adverse possession, the same in our view, has not been adequately discharged. Be that as it may, the learned Courts below having concurrently rendered the findings of fact against the petitioners, no justification has been made out for interference by this Court. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.