' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This Civil Revision is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 7-1-1996 whereby the appeal filed by the predecessors-in-interest of respondent No,2(i) to
(ix) was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 16-10-1994 was set aside.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the property in dispute, which is a shop, was an evacuee property and was initially allotted to one Wali Muhammad, predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner as well as respondents Nos.2(i) to (ix). The petitioners are the offspring of Asghar Ali son of the said Wali Muhammad while respondents Nos.2(i) to (ix) are the sons and daughters of Muhammad Yasin who is also son of the said Wali Muhammad the deceased allottee.
Said Wali Muhammad was also survived by a widow, who has since passed away. It appears from the record that after the death of Wali Muhammad, pursuant to the alleged relinquishment of rights by Asghar Ali and his mother, the, property was transferred to Muhammad Yasin vide a PTD to the exclusion of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest.
3. In the above circumstances, the present petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they were owner in the property in dispute along with predecessors-in-interest of respondents Nos.2(i) to (ix) to the extent of their share as heirs of Wali Muhammad. It was also prayed that the allotment and transfer of the said property in the name of Muhammad Yasin was a result of fraud.
The said suit was contested by Muhammad Yasin. On the divergent pleadings of the parties issues were framed whereafter the trial Court vide its judgment dated 16-10-1994 decreed the suit in favour of the present petitioners. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the predecessor-in- interest of respondents Nos.2(i) to (ix), which was accepted vide the impugned appellate judgment and decree dated 7-1-1996.
4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended with this revision petition has also been perused.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly the property in dispute was originally allotted to the common ancestor of the parties i.e, Wali Muhammad and the P.T.O. In this behalf was issued by the Settlement Authorities. It is also contended by the learned counsel that there was no occasion for relinquishing or surrendering of rights by their predecessors-in-interest in favour of Muhammad Yasin and the said surrender has not been duly proved and the witnesses of the documents allegedly evidencing such surrender have not been examined in the Court. It is further contended that the impugned appellate judgment and decree is based on misreading and non-reading of evidence.
6. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the relinquishing of the rights and subsequent transfer in favour of their predecessors-ininterest of the respondents has been proved and established on the record through documentary evidence, hence, the suit has been rightly dismissed by the appellate Court.
7. It is apparent from the record that the property in dispute was originally allotted to Wali Muhammad, the common ancestor, who died before a transfer deed was issued. It is the case of the contesting respondents that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and the widow of Wali Muhammad surrendered their rights in favour of Muhammad Yasin and such surrender was duly recorded in the proceedings of the Settlement Authorities, in pursuance whereof, the property was transferred to Muhammad Yasin vide the P.T.D. Issued in the year 1961. The said relinquishing of rights is borne out from the Exh.D1, the application filed before the Settlement Authorities by the widow of Wali Muhammad and Muhammad Asghar, the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners consenting to transfer of the property in favour of the contesting respondents. Exh.D2 is the agreement in this behalf and Exh.D3 is a supporting affidavit. The aforementioned PTD is on the record as Exh.D5. Certified copies of the aforementioned documents substantiate the case of the contesting respondents. In view of the age of the said documents and the fact that the said pertain to the official acts, there is a presumption of truth attached, which the petitioners have been unable to displace. Furthermore, it is a matter of record that Asghar Ali, in fact, died 13 years after the issuance of the PTD and during his life did not make any effort to challenge the transfer in favour of Muhammad. Yasin predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents. Relying upon the aforesaid evidence, the appellate Court returned a finding that the petitioners had been unable to prove their claim. Such finding of fact is based on the cogent evidence and sound reasoning.
The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality nor appears to be result of any irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. No misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out at the bar to justify the interference with the aforesaid finding by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.