' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.-The petitioner seeks the grant of leave from judgment dated 8-3- 1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No,692-D of 1998.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents instituted a suit for declaration that they were the owners of the suit-land measuring 1 Kanal and 5 Marlas but the petitioner had fraudulently got an entry recorded in the Revenue Record as if he was in possession of the same as a tenant at Will. The petitioner resisted the suit by taking the plea that the suit property had been purchased by his sons Basharat Ahmed and Mubashar Ahmed from its owner Mst. Rajbhari widow of Muhammad Khan for a consideration of Rs,8,000. A Mutation No,2905 dated 21-12-1974 was also entered by the Halqa Patwari. Thereafter the sons, of the petitioner had also raised constructions on the suit-land. The civil suit of the respondents was dismissed by the Civil Judge by judgment and decree dated 23-64996. The appeal of the respondents was allowed and their suit was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Kharian by judgment and decree dated 31-3-1998. The petitioner filed a civil revision thereagainst which was dismissed by the impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Mst. Rajbhari being owner of the suit property had duly sold the same to the sons of the petitioners which fact was duly reflected by the entries in the Register of mutations made by the Halqa Patwari on 21-12-1974.
4. On 'the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that, by virtue of Notification dated 17-12-1974 issued by the Government of the Punjab, the provisions of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act had been made applicable in the Province of the Punjab. Therefore, no oral sale of the disputed property was permissible during the period the aforesaid notification remained operative. It was further argued that Mst. Rajbhari was not proved, in Revenue Record pertaining to the year 1974, to be the owner of the suit property.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The findings of fact have been recorded by the Additional District Judge as well as by the Lahore High Court that Mst. Rajbhari was not the owner of the suit land and that mutation of the sale of the suit property had also not been sanctioned by any Revenue Officer. It was further held that no oral transaction of sale could take place on the crucial date as the Notification dated 17-12-1974 of the Government applying the provisions of the section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act was holding the field. The issues framed by the trail Court were proved by the respondents by adducing satisfactory evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised factual controversies which had already been determined by the Additional District Judge as well as by the Lahore High Court. No substantial question of law of general public importance is involved in this case.
6. We do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.