' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- This petition is directed against the impugned judgment and decree, dated 20-1-2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Civil Revision No,362-D of 1995.
2. The petitioner filed a civil suit on 11-4-1983 for declaration and possession claiming to be the owner of the inherited suit property measuring 103 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land. The petitioner also challenged the Mutations Nos.1163 dated 28-7-1959 and No,34, dated 24-5-1967 of the transfer and redemption of the suit property in favor of the respondents. The recovery of possession of the suit property was also prayed for. The respondents' defended the suit, inter alia, by taking the position that the petitioner of her own free-will had transferred the suit property to them and had challenged the alienation of the same after 24 years. The civil suit of the petitioner was decreed by the trial Court by judgment and decree, dated 18-1-1990 which was upheld by the Appellate Court by judgment and decree, dated 13-12-1995. The respondents filed Civil Revision No,362-D of 1995 which was allowed by the impugned judgment, dated 20-1-2000 whereby the judgments and decrees of the trial Court and the Appellate Court were set aside and the suit of the petitioner was dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the civil suit of the petitioner could not be dismissed by the Lahore High Court on the threshold of limitation period. The petitioner was rustic and simplistic old lady who had no positive knowledge of the so-called mutations of sale and redemption of the suit property in favor of the respondents. In the matters of transaction of immovable properties, it was argued, the Courts were required to take extra care and caution to safeguard the rights of the female Paradanashin ladies, in view of the law laid own by this Court in the case of Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1. The mere fact that the daughter of the petitioner had filed a suit for pre-emption in respect of the suit property was not sufficient to draw inference of any positive knowledge of the petitioner of the mutations in question at the relevant time. It was lastly contended that the concurrent findings of fact could not be interfered with by the High Court in the absence of any misreading or non-reading of evidence of the parties.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents and Mr. A.H. Masood, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the learned Advocate-General, Punjab, pursuant to our notice dated 17-1-2003, argued that mere denial by the petitioner of the transaction of sale in favor of the respondents way back in 1959 was no evidence to discard the long-standing entries in the Revenue Record of Rights which proved the transaction of sale and possession of the suit property in favor of the respondents since 1959. The respondents had also produced credit-worthy oral evidence in support of their case. The knowledge of the petitioner of the transaction of sale of the suit property was also proved on record. The petitioner had been residing with his daughter Allah Wasai who was married in the same village and who had filed a suit for pre-emption of the suit property.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We find that P.W.1 in cross- examination admitted his knowledge of the suit-land having been redeemed. P.W.2 produced by the petitioner also admitted that during the operation of consolidation of land holdings of the village in the year 1964, the petitioner was represented by her husband who put his thumb- impression on her behalf. The presumption of correctness attached to the long-standing entries in the Revenue Record of Rights was not rebutted by the petitioner by production of any satisfactory documentary or oral evidence. The petitioner remained in deep slumber for a period of 24 years despite the fact that the physical possession of the suit property had passed on to the respondents. The suit property was allocated to the respondents in 1964, as a result of consolidated proceedings in which the husband of the petitioner represented her and put her thumb-impression on the consolidation scheme. Not only that the petitioner was proved to be residing with her daughter under the same roof in the same village at the time she had filed a suit for pre-emption of the suit property against the respondents. Even then the petitioner remained mum as if she was unaware of what had happened to her property. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had ever received her share of produce from the respondents in respect of the suit property after 1959. In the presence of preponderance of evidence on record in favor of the respondents, the High Court was justified in reversing the judgments of the subordinate Courts which suffered from the defect of misreading and non-reading of evidence. No exception can be taken to the findings recorded and conclusions drawn by the High Court on the basis of the evidence on record. This is not a fit case for interference with the impugned judgment and for the grant of leave to appeal.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.