' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 31st March, 2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Civil Revision No,1281 of 1996 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that there is a dispute between the parties in respect of land measuring 36 Kanals and 8 Marlas, allotted in the name of Misri Khan, elder brother of the respondents/ plaintiffs, as maintenance allowance on 2nd May, 1958 as Jammu and Kashmir refugee. He in capacity of head of the family applied for grant of proprietary rights for a consideration of Rs,3, 290 out of which the respondents/plaintitTs had contributed Rs,1,645.
However, contrary to the instructions of the Board of Revenue provided for conferment of proprietary rights on all members of the family entered in the allotment chit, brother of the respondents/plaintiffs Misri Khan go Mutated the said land in his favor exclusively on 8th October, 1979 vide Mutation No,365. On the death of Misri Khan the said property was attested in favor of his legal heirs vide Mutation No,537 dated 13th December, 1983 as such the respondent/plaintiffs brought a suit against the legal heirs of Misri Khan. Suit filed by them was contested and was decreed on 29th June, 1995 by the Civil Judge, Gujranwala. Appeals filed by the petitioners were also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge and the learned High Court vide judgment dated 17th March, 1990 and 31st March, 2003 respectively. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Misri Khan was exclusive owner of the property as has been proved by his legal heirs on record through evidence, but the learned High Court as well as the Courts below have held otherwise by misreading the evidence on record, therefore, impugned judgment calls for interference by this Court.
4. We have heard learned counsel and have also gone through the impugned judgment carefully.
Relevant para. Is reproduced hereinbelow:--- "I. Have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The learned two Courts, on the basis of the allotment chit, a certified copy of which was produced as Exh.P.1 found, that since the plaintiffs-respondents had been entered in the allotment chit, they were also entitled to the grant of proprietary rights. The contention that the allotment chit was tampered with was raised before learned First Appellate Court but was repelled. It may be noted that the petitioner did not assert in the written statement that inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the allotment chit was the result of tampering of the record or they were not entered in the allotment chit. The presumption of genuineness attached to a certified copy of a public document is not misplaced by mere assertion. As far as the question of limitation is concerned, the plaintiffs-respondents were co-allottees with Misri their real brother, they became co-sharers with Misri and, therefore, question of limitation did not arise. In accordance with the Memorandum No,1740/2549-78 dated 21-11-1978, all members of the family included in the allotment chit were entitled to the grant of proprietary rights. This memorandum was noted in the case of Dil Bibi v.
Noor Hussain and others 1990 CLC 1994. The matter stands concluded by concurrent findings of the learned two Courts. No case is made out for interference. This revision petition is dismissed."
5. Before the High Court two questions were under consideration i,e, whether the chit of allotment was a valid document and suit is within limitation or otherwise. Learned High Court after having taken into consideration the chit held that because its validity was not challenged in the written statement, therefore, it will be presumed that on the basis of same whole family is entitled for grant of proprietary rights in disputed property. As far as the second question with regard to limitation is concerned, in this behalf it is held that since the plaintiffs-respondents were co-allottees with Misri Khan their real brother, therefore, they become co-sharers with him, as such question of limitation did not arise.
6. After hearing both the sides and having gone through the available record as well as the law on the subject we are of the opinion that impugned judgment being in accordance with law admits no interference by this Court.
' Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we see no substance in this petition as such same is dismissed and leave declined.