1. ' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order, dated 7-7- 1999 passed in Civil Revision No,237 of 1986 by learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court whereby said revision was dismissed.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff filed suit for declaration and injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from claiming the ownership of land or 75 trees on the said property in his ownership and possession which suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Mianwali as per judgment and decree, dated 6-11-1984. The respondent/plaintiff preferred an Appeal No,34 of 1985 which was allowed as per judgment and decree, dated 29-9-1985 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali. The petitioner/defendant preferred Civil Revision No,237 of 1986 before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed as per impugned order.
3. ' We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.
4. ' The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land bearing 75 trees having not been demarcated, the decree could not have been passed by the learned Appellate Court and maintained by learned Judge in Chambers, therefore, both judgments/decrees were liable to be set aside. We do not find substance and merit in the said contention.
5. All the three Courts had given concurrent finding of fact that the respondent was the owner of the land in dispute over which 75 trees existed. Nothing has brought on record by the petitioner to show that land in dispute was owned by the petitioner/defendant. Mere allegation that the trees were planted by Forest Department would not by itself confer any title over the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner, so also in respect of 75 trees over it when the said fact that 75 trees were planted by the petitioner was denied by the respondent/plaintiff. There is concurrent finding of fact by all the Courts with regard to the ownership of land in dispute, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court.
6. ' In view of above discussion this petition has no merit consequently leave to appeal is declined and petition is dismissed.