' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---By these four above-captioned petitions leave is sought to file appeals against order dated 31-10-1993 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby. Learned Judge in Chamber has dismissed in limine R.S.A. No, 46/93 and three Civil Revisions bearing No, 1008/93, 1009/93 and 1010/93 filed by the petitioners herein. Petitions before us arise from four suits filed in respect of property in dispute which was treated as evacuee property by the Rehabilitation/Settlement Authorities and was divided into four units with separate settlement numbers. Unit No,1/1534 as residential portion was transferred to Barkatullah in 1960. Three other units 1/1531, 1/1532 and 1/1533 as shops were transferred to Shaikh Anwar Ali and father of Abdul Aziz against C.S. Form in 1959. From these three units two were transferred to Shaikh Anwar Ali while one was transferred to father of Abdul Aziz. Allah Rakha brought a suit for possession of residential Unit No,1/1534 against Abdul Khaliq and three others, who are successors-ininterest of Barkatullah. Allah Rakha and four others brought a suit for possession in respect of Unit No,1/1531 against Muhammad Yaqoob and 10 others. They filed another suit for ejectment from Unit No,1/1532 of Mehmood Bux and 5 others, who are successors-in-interest of Anwar Ali. Fourth suit was filed against Manzoor Bux and 5 others in respect of Unit No,1/1533. In all these suits plaintiffs are successors-in-interest of Allah Rakha and Muhammad Sharif, who claimed that property in dispute was non-evacuee in nature and was purchased by them on 29-9-1947 from Chunilal for Rs,8,281-4-0, who was in Nairobi at the relevant time and was not caught by the definition of evacuee. It was claimed by the plaintiffs in the suits that their title was conclusively determined by decision of Custodian that property in dispute was non-evacuee belonging to Allah Rakha and Muhammad Sharif, which was further supported by judgment of the High Court dated 6-2-1985. It was claimed that defendants in the suits were in possession as trespassers and were bound to pay compensation to the plaintiffs for continued occupation of disputed property since 1947.
2. Suits were resisted and in written statements claim of plaintiffs was challenged and alternate plea of adverse possession was also taken. Issues were framed and evidence was recorded and finally suits were decreed with finding that property in dispute was non-evacuee in nature and Muhammad Sharif and Allah Rakha were its owners. Appeals were dismissed against which Regular Second Appeal and Revisions were filed in the High Court, which have been dismissed in the manner stated above, by the order which is challenged in the petitions before us.
3. Litigation in respect of disputed property has chequered history showing persistent contest between the parties. Factual background shows that disputed property originally belonged to one Waliram who sold it to Chunilal on 18-3-1943. Chunilal sold it to Muhammad Sharif and his brother Allah Rakha on 29-9-1947 through registered sale-deed executed in Nairobi. It appears that after partition the property in dispute was treated as evacuee property and allotted to some refugees.
On 30-8-1954 Muhammad Sharif, one of the vendees, moved an application under section 18 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949, before the Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property, seeking declaration that the property was not evacuee property. In that application Abdul Aziz, Hakim Muhammad Afzal, Sardar Ali and Barkatullah, who were in possession were joined as parties. This application was rejected and appeal was dismissed by Additional Custodian vide his order dated 13-7-1962. Revision was accepted by the Custodian vide his order dated 28-11-1962 with declaration that property was not evacuee and belonged to Muhammad Sharif.
4. Writ Petition No, 29/63 was filed by Barkatullah s/o Ch. Fateh Din and Abdul Aziz s/o Gul Muhammad against Custodian/Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and Muhammad Sharif challenging order passed by Custodian on 28-11-1962, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 14-5-1970 holding that disputed property could not be treated as evacuee and rightly belonged to Muhammad Sharif after death of his brother Allah Rakha. This decision was challenged in LPA No, 150/70 which was dismissed in limine. Against this C.P.L.A. No, 225/70 was filed which was dismissed vide order dated 8-12-1970, relevant extract from this order is as under:- "We consider that both the Custodian and the learned Judges in the High Court, on the facts of the case, have rightly decided that Chunilal was a non-evacucee, and the house in dispute, being of a non-evacuee character, no exception could be taken to the sale of that house by Chunilal in favour of Muhammad Sharif."
5. Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed order dated 15-5-1980 holding that since property number was not mentioned in the order of Custodian passed on 28-11-1962, hence that order did not relate to disputed property, which was declared evacuee property. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No, 261/83 by L.Rs, of Muhammad Sharif and in those proceedings were impleaded as respondents L.Rs, of Barkatullah and also Manzoor Bux and Shaikh Anwar Ali, who had purchased two shops of the disputed property in the auction with transfer orders and P.T.Ds issued in their favour. Earlier than that Writ Petition No, 235/81 was filed by Jumma Allah Rakha and others against the same respondents and both these petitions were allowed vide judgment with declaration that order impugned therein and passed on 15-5-1980 by Deputy Settlement Commissioner upholding the transfer or auction was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Relevant portion from the same judgment is reproduced as under:-- "In the aforementioned circumstances when the property had been declared as non-evacuee by the learned Custodian and the order had been upheld by the learned High Court it was not open to any Settlement Authority to have transferred or auctioned the same."
6. Against the decision mentioned above, two Intra-Court Appeals Nos.50/85 and 51/85 were filed which were dismissed in limine by Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 24-11-1986.
Against that decision C.P.LA. Nos. 208 and 209 of 1987 were filed in this Court which were dismissed vide order dated 6-11-1988, relevant paragraph from which is reproduced as under:- "Now the dispute is only in regard to the identity of the property because its number was not mentioned in the agreement and another number was mentioned in the application. However, Abdul Aziz and Barkatullah who were parties in the dispute before the Deputy Custodian did not challenge the identity of the property on the ground that another property existed by that name or as shown bounded in the agreement.
' The learned counsel in the context of this omission was not able to advance his case further and had to admit that the property in dispute is situate in the same Mohallah. Therefore, the question of identity is far too late to be agitated as the proceedings which commenced were terminated by an order of this Court which finally determined not only that question but also the further question as to the status of the seller as being non-evacuee. In this context the orders of the Settlement Commissioner dated 4-5-1973 and 15-5-1980 were illegal as they could not re-open the issue with regard to the status of the property which was held to be non-evacuee."
7. It appears from what is stated above, that after two rounds of litigation between the parties, which were finally rounded up with decisions of the Supreme Court the following three questions have attained finality and are not to be opened again. Firstly that the disputed property is not evacuee. Secondly, that order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 15-5-1980 declaring disputed property to be evacuee on the ground that in the order passed by Custodian on 28-11- 1962, property number was not mentioned, is without lawful authority and of no legal effect, Thirdly, dispute with regard to the identity of the property in question is finally resolved by this Court that it is the same property in respect of which two orders were passed by Custodian and Deputy Settlement Commissioner mentioned above.
8. Now we come to the proceedings in hand arising from four suits filed by the parties which were disposed of and culminated into one Regular Second Appeal and three Revisions which have been dismissed by the High Court in limine vide common order which is impugned in these petitions.
Learned A.S.C. For the petitioners raised four contentions before us, Firstly, finding of the Custodian in respect Of agreement dated 29-9-1947 got merged into decision of this Court, hence question of acquisition on that ground could not arise in the suit. Secondly, respondents/plaintiffs, relying upon document executed in 1947, filed suit in 1986 for possession, which was time-barred for the reasons that petitioners/defendants in the earlier round of litigation claimed to be owners on the basis of the adverse possession. Thirdly, petitioners/defendants could not be non-suited in their defence on the plea of res judicata as their case in the earlier judgment of this Court was that document in dispute had been referred to as an agreement. Fourthly, suit was barred by limitation as final order was passed by Custodian on 28-11-1962 and suit was filed in 1986.
9. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the High Court shows that the contentions raised above, were raised before the High Court in more detailed form which are reproduced in the impugned order and need not be repeated here. It would suffice to say that after hearing the counsel for both parties, High Court converted the contentions and worded them concisely as three questions reproduced as under:- "(1) Whether Muhammad Sharif and Allah Rakha had purchased the property in dispute by means of agreement of sale dated 29-9-1947, which was not registered under section 17 of the Registration Act and it therefore, did not create any legal right in favour of Muhammad Sharif and Allah Rakha?
(ii) Whether the two Courts below have correctly held that the questions of nature of property and entitlement of purchasers were directly and substantially in issue between the same parties in the previous rounds of litigation before the forums of competent jurisdiction and this Court is not entitled to re-examine this issue.
(iii) Whether the appellants/petitioners have acquired proprietary rights in various portions of the property in dispute in their respective possession on the ground of adverse possession."
10. While answering the questions, High Court has combined questions Nos.1 and 2 as being interconnected involving nature of the property and entitlement of the plaintiffs in the suit and held that these questions were examined by the Custodian, who gave his findings on 28-11-1962 holding in unequivocal terms that disputed property was not evacuee and belonged to Muhammad Sharif.
This finding was maintained in the first round of litigation which went up to Supreme Court. In the circumstances, High Court came to the conclusion that on the principle of res judicata as embodied in section 11, C.P.C. Questions relating to status of the disputed property and entitlement of the plaintiffs could not be reopened. On the question of adverse possession it is held in the impugned order that possessory title is available against the whole world except the owner and in the instant case in that connection, there is A consistent adjudication by the Courts right up to the stage of the Supreme Court, hence in the light of such position claim of plaintiffs for recovery of possession could not be denied to them on the plea of adverse possession. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that petitioners/defendants in the suits, as claimed by them, were inducted into possession by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities as allottees and there is finding by the Courts that disputed property was not evacuee property, hence such orders could not be passed and were invalid.
11. We are unable to find any flaw or legal flaw of legal infirmity in the impugned order with which no interference is warranted, and therefore, leave is refused and these petitions are dismissed as they lack merits.