JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J. --- This revision petition' impugns the concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court dated 12.10.2000 and of the learned lower Appellate Court dated 10.1.2002 whereby a suit for permanent injunction .Filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed.
2. The facts of the case have been setout in the impugned judgments and need not, therefore, be reproduced in extenso.
3. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Muhammad Tufail and Muhammad Sharif, filed a declaratory.
Suit claiming that they were co-owners of the suit property alongwith their brother Faqir Muhammad (predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners). It was their case that the three' brothers had jointly paid the Government dues for the allotted land measuring 68-kanals, 7-marlas, but the allotment was made only in the name of Faqir Muhammad. The respondents are in possession or their share of the suit property.
4. Both Courts below have concurrently held that the respondents/plaintiffs have proved their case.
The learned Courts below have relied on the evidence of the PWs as well as documentary evidence including affidavit and statement of Faqir Muhammad acknowledging the interest of the respondents/plaintiffs in the suit property.
5. It is not in dispute that the respondents are in possession of one-half of the land, which was allotted in the C.L.R, came of Faqir Muhammad. This itself is strong evidence of the veracity of the respondents/plaintiffs. The learned Courts `below were fully justified in passing the impugned decrees. The same are unexceptionable being consistent with the record. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees, which would justify interference therein while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition which is, therefore, dismissed. .