' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against order, dated 9th July, 1999 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby R.S.A No,67 of 1999 has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that Mst. Mehr Bibi widow of Nemat Khan being recorded owner of the suit land sold away the same to the respondent which fact can be verified from the judgment/decree of Civil Court, dated 24-7-1991. One Mst. Umer Hussan claiming herself to be daughter of Nemat Khan and Mst. Mehr Bibi filed a suit challenging the sale of the property on the ground that the land was transferred to Mst. Mehr Bibi on RL-II against her verified claim on the tasis of land owned by said Nemat Khan in India which was mutated in favour of Mst. Mehr Bibi being limited owner on the death of Nemat Khan. The plaintiff claimed her share in the suit land after cancellation of sale.
3. The suit was contested by the respondent both on legal and factual grounds.
4. Learned trial Court after completion of codal formalities dismissed the suit vide judgment/decree, dated 19-4-1977. On appeal filed by the plaintiff the judgment/decree was set aside and case was remanded to the trial Court.
Once again the suit was decreed. Again on appeal the case was remanded vide order, dated 2-11- 1982. Leaned trial Court again decreed the suit vide judgment, dated 22-4-1985. The respondent once again instituted appeal, which was again allowed, and case remanded to the trial Court. This time the appeal filed by the respondent the suit was dismissed vide judgment/decree-dated 7-7- 1993. Against the last mentioned order the plaintiff filed appeal, which was dismissed by Additional District Judge on 12-6-1999.
5. Petitioners being aggrieved from the judgments/decrees of the Courts below instituted R.S.A.
No,67 of 1999, which has been dismissed t y a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court Lahore by means of impugned order, dated 9-7-1999. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
6. Learned counsel stated that Mst. Mehr Bibi widow of Nemat Khan was a limited owner as she was governed by the custom/Riwaj, therefore, she had no legal entitlement to transfer the property to any one else.
7. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel and perused the record carefully. In view of the argument question for consideration is as to whether plaintiff/petitioner has established on record through evidence that Mst. Mehr Bibi was governed by the custom. Scanning of available evidence indicates that plaintiff/petitioner has miserably failed to prove that Mst. Mehr Bibi was governed by the custom. In this behalf learned High Court has also examined the evidence available on record.
Relevant para. Therefrom is reproduced hereunder:- "3. In any case I have gone through the record placed on the file of this R.S.A. With the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant. There is no evidence on the record to support the contents of the plaint. I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recoded by the two learned Courts below. What to speak of discharging the heavy onus on the appellants, they even failed to cross- examine the respondent who entered the witness-box as D.W:4 and categorically stated that Mst.
Mehr Bibi was a full owner of the suit land. Not a single question was put to this witness in cross- examination to challenge the said statement. There is not an iota of evidence on the record that the land was transferred to Mst. Mehr Bibi against the claim of Nemat Khan or in lieu of her alleged limited estate. The R.S.A is accordingly dismissed in limine."
8. It may be noted that the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was ultimately dismissed by Civil Judge on 7th July, 1993 and finding so recorded by the trial Court was maintained by the Appellate Court and High Court, therefore, in such view of the matter when there are concurrent findings of fact and no evidence is available on record to support the contentions of the learned counsel nor any ground recognized by this Court in the cases of Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291) and Mussarat Sultana v. Muhammad Saeed (1997 SCM R 1866) for interference in concurrent findings of facts is made out.
' Thus petition has no merit as such leave to appeal is declined.