' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 27-9-1999 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No,707 of 1999 dismissing the same and concurring with the findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below.
2. Respondent No,1 filed a suit for declaration that he is actually the person who owns the suit-land and that its alienation by petitioner No,1 in favour of petitioners Nos.2 and 3 vide registered gift- deed No,778, dated 10-2-1991 be declared as illegal and void. He also prayed for a permanent injunction against respondent Bagh Ali restraining him from posing him as Taj Din and against remaining respondents from alienating the suit-land to anyone else. As a consequence, he prayed for a decree for possession qua suit-land measuring 15 Kanals, 14 Marlas described in paragraph No,1 of the plaint.
3. The suit was resisted, issues were framed, both the sides adduced evidence and was ultimately decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 20-9-1997. Petitioners preferred an appeal against the above judgment and decree, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot vide judgment and decree, dated 6-3-1999. Being still dissatisfied, petitioners tried their luck before the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction in terms of section 115, C.P.C., where their revision has been dismissed in limine by a learned Judge in Chambers vide judgment, dated 27-9-1999, which has been impugned through this petition.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, gone through the record and carefully examined the impugned judgment of the High Court. From the record it appears that apart from other oral and documentary evidence, respondent No,1 has produced one Kaka son of Umar Din aged 80/85 years, who, in his statement before the trial Court explained that Fateh Din was also known as Pir Muhammad; 'that he was his maternal uncle having four sons, namely, Taj Din, Bagh Ali, Hassan Din and. Muhammad Sharif besides two daughters. He testified that it was respondent No,1 who is Taj Din to whom the land was allotted and who deposited the money. His evidence was found worthy of A credence as the same could not be shattered during the course of cross- examination. Beside other oral evidence, Nikahnamas and Birth entries in respect of children of Bagh Ali were produced in evidence and duly considered by the Courts below. Such findings .Of fact have been duly affirmed by the High Court.
5. On a careful scrutiny of the record, we are unable to find any fault with the appreciation of evidence done by the Courts below and rightly upheld by the High Court. No ground for leave is thus, made out with the consequence that the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.