SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The dispute between the parties relates to a portion of an Ahata situate in Chak No.120/S.P. Tehsil Sargodha. The petitioner filed a suit for the possession of the disputed portion on the assertion that he was a transferee thereof since 20-11-1947. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but on appeal by the respondent it was dismissed by the District Judge. The petitioner filed a regular second appeal in the High Court but this too was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The main contention of the petitioner is that the learned Additional District Judge while accepting the appeal of the respondents did not record separate findings on each issue and for that reason he had not delivered a proper judgment.
3. We have seen the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge and find no merit in the contention. It is true that the learned District Judge has not discussed each issue separately but he has given his findings on all the points that were raised before him. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment recorded by him is not a proper one.
4. On merits, there is a finding of the learned Additional District Judge which was affirmed by the High Court that the portion in dispute was evacuee property and was transferred by the Rehabilitation and Settlement authorities to the respondent. The learned counsel has not been able to show that this finding suffers from any infirmity. Leave is refused.