' MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J. -The dispute in this case relates to the ownership of 16 kanals 14 marlas of land bearing khasra Nos. 1986, 1992, 1993 and 1994 situate in village far landi, Tehsil Swabi, District Mardan, which originally belonged to one Said Akbar. f he latter dold the land to one Shehzada who in turn transferre d to Muhammad Ismail and Painda Khan respondents. Feroz Shah the p redecessor-in-interest of the petitioners being in possession of this land denied the title of the respondents who brought a suit for possession. Feroz Shah resisted the suit and claimed title on the basis of adverse possession.
2. Having considered the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Civil Judge found that the plaintiffs-respondents were the owners of the suit land and that the defendants-petitioners' adverse possession had not matured into ownership. His claim to compensation for improvements was also rejected. The suit for possession was decreed except in respect of khasra No, 1986 of which Feroz Shah was held to be a mortgagee. Both the parties went in appeal. The first appellate Court upheld the findings that the plaintiffs-respondents were the owners of the suit land and that the defendants-petitioners' plea of title by adverse possession was untenable. The finding that Feroz Shah was mortgagee of khasra Nov 1986, was however, set aside and instead he was found entitled to Rd. 900 on account of improvements. Feroz Shah went in second appeal before the High Court and died during its pendency. Hid legal representatives were brought on the record and only the point of adverse possession was argued on their behalf before the High Court.
3. Having perused the relevant entries in the various jamabandis prepared in succession, the learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld the finding of the Courts below that maturity of the petitioner'd title by adverse possession remained established.
4. In support of the petition, learned counsel half-heartedly contender for us, that there were conflicting entries in the Revenue Record. Be that as it may, this by no means advances the case of the petitioners to establish their title by adverse possession of which the onus lay heavily on them.
The petition is devoid of force and is accordingly dismissed.