' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, judgment, dated 16-2-1999 in R.S.A, No, 557 of 1972 whereby concurrent findings of fact in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondents predecessor-in-interest were upheld.
2. Respondent Khuda Baldish (since dead) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of house measuring 1 Kanal and 8 Marlas constructed on Khasra No, 55/27 Mauza Taliri Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh on the strength of his continuous, open, hostile and exclusive possession for more than 40 years. It was .Averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was in occupation of the property in suit without any objection, protest or interference by the petitioners. Petitioners resisted the suit on legal and factual grounds and claimed to be owners of the Khasra in the written statement.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Civil Court:---
(1) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? O.P.D.
(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable at law? O.P.D.
(3) Whether the plaint discloses no cause of action. If so, its effect? O.P.D.
(4) Whether the description of the suit-land is correct. If not, then what is the correct description?
O.P.P.
(5) Whether the plaintiff has become full owner of the suit-land by adverse possession? OPP
(6) Whether the plaintiff is in occupation of any part of the suit-land under the status of a tenant? If so, on what part and with what effect? O.P.D..
(7) Relief.
' The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree, dated 14-11-1970 in favour of the respondents.
First and second appeals preferred by the petitioners before the respective Court having failed they are before this Court through this petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Hameed Azhar Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on the record and the impugned judgment. From the record it transpires that the respondents had pleaded the case of continuous, hostile, exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the property for over four decades without any challenge. Their right and title to the property was established beyond doubt through the evidence of the plaintiff. No doubt petitioners filed copies of Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari registers tending to show that they were recoded owner in possession the fact of the matter is that the document Exh. D.1 does not by itself establish any right, interest andtitle to the properties described in Khasra No,55/27 measuring 3 Kanals and 4 Marlas. Entries in the Khasra Girdawari Register for the year1955-56 do not appear to be in the names of the petitioners and relate to entirely different Khasra numbers having no bearing on the merits of the petitioners' stance. Even otherwise entries in Revenue Record are entered for fiscal purposes and are not the conclusive proof of ownership. Presumption of correctness attached to such entries, has been adequately rebutted by the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed the exclusive possession of the respondents over the property in suit. However, he contended that the plea of adverse possession was not available to the respondents in view of the law laid down in Maqbool Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan 1991 SCM R 2063. We do not feel persuaded to agree with this submission as this law would be operative with effect from 31-8-1991 and would not govern the past and closed transactions.
Admittedly the suit was decreed way back on 14-11-1970, therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be assailed on this ground.
6. In the face of overwhelming evidence leading to concurrent findings of fact no substantial question of law of pubic importance has been raised for consideration by this Court, with the natural consequence that we find no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.