' This revision petition impugns the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court dated 27-7-1999 and of the learned lower Appellate Court dated 28-1-2002.
2. The facts of this case have elaborately been set out in the impugned judgments and need not, therefore, be reproduced in circus.
3. The only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners was that section 19-A had been introduced in the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act V of 1912 through an amending Act passed in 1957. On the basis of the amending Act, female heirs were also entitled to inherit tenancies under the Colonies Act. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, pointed out that in the District of Rahim Yar Khan, in which the suit-land is situate, the aforesaid provisions were extended through Ordinance No.13 of 1963 promulgated on 20-5-1963. In these circumstances, it was contended that Bilal Din (predecessor-ininterest of the parties) having died in 1957, the rights vested in the respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 prior to the aforesaid Ordinance, it was therefore, contended by him that the declaratory suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs was rightly dismissed by the learned Courts below. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the case titled Mst.
Imam Bibi v. Allah Ditta and others PLD 1989 SC 384.
4. I have considered the cited precedent and find that it supports the argument of learned counsel for the respondents. At this juncture, it is important to note that the respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 paid the instalments of the outstanding amounts to the Government after the death of Bilal Din and acquired proprietary rights therein after the instalments had been paid.
5. In the foregoing circumstances, I find that the impugned judgments and decrees are unexceptionable. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned judgments, which would require interference therein while exercising revisions' jurisdiction. In the circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed.