KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J. - By this consolidated judgment, we intend to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos. 582-L to 591-L of 2003, as these-arise from the same impugned judgment dated 18.12.2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, and common questions of fact and law are involved, In all the petitions, petitioner is the same and the respondents are occupants of various shops of which the petitioner claims to be the owner and entitled to evict the occupants.
2. Respondents in each of the petitions filed suits for declaration as to their status as co-sharer.
Petitioner in each of the petitions on the other hand, filed suits for possession and eviction. The suits were tried together. Vide judgment dated 10.10.1995, the Trial Court dismissed petitioners' suits and decreed that of the respondents. Petitioners' appeals were dismissed by the 1st appellate Court on 31.7.2002. Further revisions (Civil Revisions Nos. 2046 to 2055/2002) filed by the petitioner in the Lahore High Court, were dismissed vide judgment dated 18.12.2002. Petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attacked the consistent finding of all the Courts below as to the status of the respondents as being co-sharer. He has drawn our attention to mutation No. 972 dated 27.1.1985 (Ext. D/1) to show that Muhammad Nawaz purchased land from Mst. Shamim Akhtar, (sister of the petitioner) in khata No. 31 while respondent is shown to have purchased the land from Muhammad Nawaz in khata. No. 32. From this material, learned counsel urges that the findings of the Courts below are based on misreading.
4. This submission even if correct, does not entitle the petitioner to get a decree of eviction and possession. On the basis of purchase from Muhammad Nawaz, the respondents will be deemed to be occupying the land in their on right as owners, It is 'not the case of the petitioner that respondents have trespassed on to the land of the petitioner. Learned counsel equally failed to point out any material showing the respondents to be tenants of the petitioner. The Courts have consistently disbelieved, the oral assertion of the petitioner to this effect and with that conclusion, we do not find anything to disagree.
5. There is no force in these Petitions, which are hereby dismissed and leave is refused.