1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---On 15-3-1981, the Civil Judge, Lahore passed a decree in favour of Abdul Rahim and Bashir Ahmad respondents herein in a suit for possession through partition against Muhammad Sakhi petitioner herein and his brother Muhammad Rafi, giving the respondents 7/18th share. The same share to the petitioner and 4/18th share to one Mst. Sardaran Begum daughter of Muhammad Din. The learned trial Court also held that there was no proof of adoption of Muhammad Shafi, father of the petitioner, by Hayat Muhammad and even otherwise adoption is not recognized in the Muslim Law. The petitioner herein filed appeal against the order of Civil Judge, Lahore, Before the District Judge, Lahore, who vide his judgment dated 5-11-1981 accepted the contention of Muhammad Shafi that he was the adopted son of Hayat Muhammad and as such had become the sole owner of the property after the death of Hayat Muhammad and reversed the decree and order passed by the civil judge. Against this order the respondent's civil revision before the Lahore High Court was accepted, set aside the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court and preliminary decree for possession by partition of one-third share of the property in dispute is passed in favour of the respondents against the petitioner We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment of the courts below. We have observed that Muhammao Shafi, father of the petitioner had failed to convince the Court that Hayat Muhammad was governed by the custom which could validate his adoption, otherwise the validity of the act of adoption of the petitioner's father is to be judged according to the Muslim Law and not from the custom prevailing. Now the question whether the High Court misread the contents of the alleged gift deed dated 22-12-1980 is a question of fact and does not raise any question of law or of a public importance. Thus, the High Court proceeded the same correctly on the principle of interpretation of the document. In the circumstances, we do not consider this case to be fit for interference by this Court.
2. The petition, is therefore, dismissed and leave refused.