1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---These petitions for leave to appeal have arisen out of declaratory suits by mortgagees of land which was held to be evacuee property. Although in C.P.224-P of 1991 learned counsel for the petitioners candidly admitted that the suit land had become evacuee property and thus, according to him, the evacuee interest was involved therein, the learned counsel for the petitioners in C.P.215-P of 1991 after having made a statement that the property was not evacuee nor evacuee mortgagees' interest was involved therein when called upon to substantiate this statement could not do so. There is no reason for us to ignore the assumption made by the High Court in both the cases that the property, involved in this case had become evacuee. The next crucial question which wises is; whether, the law of limitation as contended by the learned counsel in C.P.215-P of 1991 would operate regarding such property which had become evacuee and in which petitioners had mortgagee rights--according to them the law of limitation was applicable and that on the expiry of the specified period, the mortgagees would be entitled to be clothed with full title and right of ownership in it. The High Court has referred to the provisions contained in the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1958 together with section 14-A of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, for coming to the conclusion that the mortgagees' interest in the property as mortgagees had been extinguished and that the only interest they had was of a charge created by law. This view is supported by two judgments of this Court. They are Subedar Muhammad Tufail v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and others 1970 SCM R 73 and Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Sharif 1981 SCM R 550.
2. ' When faced with this legal position none of the learned counsel could advance the cases any further. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.