ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 30-7-1990.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the Civil Court on the allegation that about 57 years back the suit land had been purchased by their predecessor-in-interest and obtained possession thereof, and that the respondents were interfering with their peaceful possession. The suit was contested. The trial Court decreed the suit and restrained the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. This order was challenged by the respondents in appeal before the High Court. The appeal was accepted and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are concurrent findings by the two Courts that the petitioners are in possession of the suit land as such the petitioners have been able to establish their case. Exh.P.1 is a document which was executed about 57 years back but that document has been ignored by the High Court. The High Court has observed "that apparently the plaintiffs have not been able to establish the purchase of the suit land. However, an oral version of the witnesses coupled with entries in Khasra Girdawari certainly proves the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land."
4. Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether in view of concurrent findings of the two Courts about the possession of the petitioners, they are not entitled to the claim to the suit land.
5. Security Rs.5,000.
The stay with regard to possession shall continue.