' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--Sher Muhammad, petitioner before us filed a suit against the present respondents in the Court of a learned Civil Judge at Joharabad seeking a declaration that he was in possession of 137 KanaIs and 12 Marlas of land; that his possession was in the capacity of an owner for the last 26 years, being a possession open and adverse to the actual owners; that he had acquired prescriptive rights over the property in question; that the entries in the Revenue Record to be contrary were incorrect and it had consequently been prayed that the defendants (respondents before us) be permanently restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioner-plaintiff over the suit-land and also from claiming ownership of the same.
2. Through his judgment dated 3-11-1982, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit which judgment and decree was however, reversed by the learned District Judge of Khushab, on appeal, through his judgment dated 8-6-1983 as a result of which the suit of Sher Muhammad, petitioner was dismissed with costs; He questioned the said appellate judgment before the Lahore High Court through Civil Revision No,1100 of 1983 which petition was dismissed by the Honourable High Court through a judgment dated 6-7-1999.
3. Hence this petition.
4. We have examined the material available on record in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and find that no exception could be taken to the revisional and the appellate judgments impugned before us.
5. The concurrent fmdings of the said learned Courts are based on the overwhelming documentary evidence available on record. Both the Courts were one in holding, and rightly so, that oral evidence which was contrary to the documentary evidence could not be given preference over the said documentary evidence. The only two entries i.e, relating to Rabi 1973 and Kharif 1973 which stood in favour of the petitioner-plaintiffwere directed to be removed by the Collector of the District on an appeal filed before him. He had further ordered that the entries as they existed in Rabi 1972 should be restored. This order of the Collector was maintained in the second appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner of Sargodha who had dismissed the said appeal through an order dated 13-6-1979. In this view of the matter, the Honourable High Court and the learned Appellate Court were justified in holding that the oral evidence offered by the petitioner- plaintiff which was not supported by the strong documentary evidence available on record, could not be given any credit. The concurrent conclusions reached and the reasons offered therefore could not be said to be based either on misreading or non-reading of evidence.
6. Consequently, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.