' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---By this common order we intend to dispose of the above 8 petitions for leave to appeal which are directed against a common order dated 23-9-1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court as Bahawalpur Bench m Civil Revisions Nos.98, 99, 107, 108, 109, 110, 126 and 127 of 1998 filed by the petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 20-12- 1997 of the learned Additional District Judge-I, Bahawalpur, dismissing the same.
2. The brief facts are that the respondents filed suit against the petitioners for possession of eight plots of land with the structures thereon situated in Killa No,16 of Rec. No,155/3 situated within the limits of Basti Shahwala in the revenue estate of Mauza Arazi Qaimka, Tehsil Bahawalnagar on the basis of averment that the petitioners were allowed to live temporarily for a period of five years.
The above suit was resisted by the petitioners. The learned Civil Judge-IIIrd Class, Bahawalpur, in Suit No,333 of 1995, after framing the issues and recording of evidence, through his judgment dated 14-12-1995, held that the suit property was owned by the respondents but the suit was barred by time as it was filed after expiry of more than 12 years. Against the above judgment, the respondents filed appeal, which was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Bahawalpur, by judgment and decree dated 20-12-1997. On the question of limitation, he recorded the following findings:- "Article 142 of the Limitation Act does not govern the above proposition rather Article 144 is applicable wherein limitation starts running from the date when such person starts adverse possession. The appellants have specifically mentioned in their plaint that the respondent refused to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed property about two months prior to the institution of the suit. In such view of, the matter, the learned Civil Judge has erred in deciding Issue No,6 against the appellants and as a result of his findings on Issue No,6 he has wrongly decided Issue No,9 against them. The learned Civil Judge has rightly come to the conclusion on his findings on Issue No,9 that the appellants are the owners of the disputed property but has erroneously decided that they are not entitled to have a decree for possession due to his findings on Issue No,6.
' There is no second opinion about the fact that claim through adverse possession and prescription in un-Islamic and a kind of usurpation, 1995 CLC 403 Peshawar, 1995 CLC 136 (SC (AJ&K) and 1991 SCM R 2063 (Shariat Appellate Bench) can safely be relied in this regard."
3. After having concluded as above, he allowed the appeal as under:-- "For what has been discussed above, I reverse the findings of the learned Civil Judge on Issues Nos.6 and 9 and hold that the suit of the appellants is within time and that they are entitled to get a decree for possession of the disputed property. The appeal is, therefore, accepted and the impugned judgment and decree is set aside the suit for possession filed by the appellants against the respondents stands decreed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The file be consigned to the record room after its due completion and that of the lower Court be sent back immediately."
4. Against the above judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioners filed above Civil Revisions, which have been dismissed in limine inter alia for the following reasons:- "Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Exh. P-1 which was Jamabandi of the year 1991- 93, clearly demonstrated that respondents were not the owners of the property in dispute. I am afraid that this point has little merit. Muhammad Arshad one of the plaintiffs entered appearance in the witness-box and stated that the respondents were owners of suit property; that eight residential units were built over it. In cross-examination he was asked that before consolidation this land was not owned to respondents-plaintiffs meaning thereby that disputed Killa fell in the share of respondents in consolidation proceedings: This question completely demolished the case of the petitioners who had almost inconsistent stand in their written statements. In the first place it was claimed that the petitioners had become owners of suit property by adverse possession and that respondents were its owners. In second place, it was urged that property in dispute were part of Shamlat Deh: Lastly it was suggested that respondents got this Killa in consolidation of land. All these stands are mutually contradictory and do not advance the case of the petitioners. It is thus clear that the decisions rendered by the Additional District Judge-I, Bahawalnagar are eminently just and are unexceptionable.
' For the reasons stated above, these revision petitions fail and are hereby dismissed in limine."
5. In support of the above petition Mr. Zahid Hussain Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge in Chambers was not justified in dismissing the above Civil Revisions as the question of title of the respondents in respect of the suit property was the subject-matter of a suit between the respondents and a third party.
6. The above contention is devoid of any force. All the three Courts below have held that the respondents were owners of the suit property. This is a concurrent finding which seems to be in accordance with law, inasmuch as the petitioners did not even suggest in the cross-examination to the respondents' witnesses that the respondents were not owners of the suit property. The learned Judge in Chamber has rightly pointed out in the above- A quoted para. 4 of the impugned order that the petitioners have been raising inconsistent pleas. Admittedly the petitioners have no title whatsoever to the suit property. In view of the finding of the Coruts below that the petitioners were inducted by the respondents the petitioners could not have raised the plea of adverse possession. The impugned order seems to be in consonance with law.
7. Leave to appeal is refused and the petitions are dismissed.