' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 8-3-1999 rendered by a learned Judge, in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.317 of 1999.
2. The facts are short and simple. One Muhammad Ali, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 7, had filed a suit against respondent No.8 on the basis of a pronote under Order 37, C.P.C.
For recovery of a sum of Rs.69,478. The suit was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge, Depalpur, vide judgment, dated 13-4-1995. The decree was challenged by respondent No.8 through R.F.A. No.197 of 1995 which was Admitted to regular hearing on 25-7-1995 by a learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court, In the meantime an execution petition was field by the legal heirs of Muhammad All with the prayer that the property of the judgment-debtor mentioned in Fard Taliqa be auctioned for recovery of the decretal amount and satisfaction of the decree. The petitioner filed an objection petition to the effect that the property mentioned in Fard Taliqa was owned by her and the judgment-debtor had no right or interest therein whatsoever. The objection petition was dismissed on 9-2-1999 and the revision petition preferred against that order was also dismissed by the High Court on 8-3-1999.
3. It appears from the record that the revision petition was dismissed by the learned. Judge in Chambers of the High Court with the following observations:-- ' "The perusal of the statements of witnesses of the objector as well as decree-holders shows that what has been actually attached are the shops belonging to the judgment-debtor. The R.Ws. Are clear that the petitioner has since sold the land and the shops belong to the judgment-debtor.
Even the petitioner's witnesses asserted ownership of the petitioner in the land only and wanted the Court to infer her ownership of the disputed shops on the alleged claim of her attorney that she received the rent. The executing Court has noted that the objector herself never appeared in Court and this was necessary in view of the claim of the decree-holders that the objector was a fictitious person. The Court also noticed that none of her sons appeared to support her claim and only one of the so-called tenants was constituted as attorney to make a statement on her behalf."
4. There is no proof on the record muchless tangible that the property attached in the execution of the money decree obtained by respondents Nos.1 to 7 is owned by the, petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also, expressed his inability to press into service any document to lend support to the petitioner's claim which appears to be more imaginary than real. The scenario will not change even if the allegation that the petitioner receives rent Of the attached property is held to be sacrosanct because it goes without saying that mere receipt of rent of a Property does not confer its title on the recipient. Consequently, the petition is dismissed and leave refused.