KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J. A.I Ahmad Khan (hereinafter called the plaintiff respondent) filed a suit for a declaration of his title and ownership over a house described more fully in the plaint situated in Abadi Qasimpura, Chak No. 279; R. B., Tehsil and District Faisalabad against (i) Abdul Hamid, (ii) Allah Rakha, and (iii) Abdul Majid (defendants) and for a permanent injunction to restrain them 'from interfering with his title and ownership over the same which was based on a sale-deed Exh. P/1 dated 7-2-1956 whereby ha had purchased the said property from its previous owner Nadir Khan. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge on 17-2-1975.
2. The defendants filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 6-2-1978. A second appeal being R. S. A. No. 119178 filed by the defendants also met the' same fate and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 10-4-1979. The defendants have coma up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
3. The main defence of the defendants in the case was that they bad purchased the suit land in dispute from its previous owner Nadir Khan by means of a sale-deed Exh. D/1 dated 14-3-1956 where after they had raised certain construction thereon. (Actually it was purchased by Abdul Hameed defendant No. 1 who further sold it to Allah Rakha and Abdul Majid defendants 2 and 3). As against that, as already mentioned above, the case of the plaintiff was that the plot had earlier 'been purchased by him from the same owner by means of a sale-deed of a prior date on 7-2- 1956 Exh. P/1. The identity of the property, it may be mentioned from that point of view was established by the defendants themselves and the evidence on the record even otherwise also proved that it was the same plot which had been purchased by the plaintiff to which they too laid the claim. In that view of the matter all the Courts below held that the sale of the plaintiff 'being prior in time obviously he was is owner and not the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners wanted to argue that the site/property purchased by his clients was different from' the one purchased by the plaintiff. Firstly if this is so then there should be no objection on the part of the defendants in accepting the plaintiff's independent title. However, when the attention of the learned counsel was drawn to the relevant evidence on the subject where through his own questions to the witnesses it was got proved to the contrary he could not advance his case any further. It had further been established that the suit plot/property was given by the plaintiff to Allah Rakha brother of the petitioners as a tenant, against whom the plaintiff successfully obtained an ejectment order from the Court of a Rent Controller, and it was thereafter that the present defendants jumped into the field and started asserting their own title over the same property which pave rise to the present suit. However, it is enough for our purpose to state that the subject matter at present in dispute is concluded by the concurrent findings of the three Courts below supported by the attending evidence referred to in detail in their orders and the learned counsel could not point out violation of any law, or any error in the appreciation of evidence and of procedure in that respect so as to warrant interference by this Court.
4. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed, in limine.