' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- Brief facts leading to this civil revision are that Mst. Muradan Bibi the petitioner claimed herself to be the legal heir of Mst. Begum Bibi who was the original owner of the property in dispute and alleged that she along with respondents Nos.1 to 6 are the legal heirs of Mst. Begum Bibi and the respondents Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with the Revenue Authorities without consent of Mst. Begum Bibi got mutated the sale attested vide Mutation No,177, dated 16-6-1986 which is illegal and against the rights of the plaintiff and filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hafizabad. The respondents contested the suit on various grounds and out of the pleadings of the parties seven issues were framed; the learned Civil Judge recorded the evidence of both the parties and finally dismissed the suit of Mst.
Muradan Bibi.
2. The petitioner filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Hafizabad who vide judgment, dated 19-3-1996 confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge and dismissed the appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below have misread the evidence on record and failed to apply their judicial mind because it was escaped from the notice of the learned Courts below that respondent No,2 was not present at the time of sanction of mutation, he did not pay any amount as consideration of the land in dispute so he never recognized Mst. Begum Bibi deceased at the time of sanctioning of mutation rendering the mutation as without lawful authority. Further submits that the petitioner is in possession of the suit- land and respondents Nos.1 and 2 never demanded the possession of the suit-land from Mst.
Begum Bibi or from the petitioner and it is contended that the suit was well within time whereas the findings recorded by the Courts below were erroneous.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents supports the judgments impugned.
5. Arguments heard; record perused.
6. So far the question of limitation is concerned, suffice it to say that findings to the effect that the vide Mutation No,340, dated 16-12-1974 Exh.D.1, Mst. Begum Bibi sold the property in question in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and as a result of consolidation proceedings the Mutation No,177, dated 16-6-1986 was entered into and the suit for declaration with consequential relief, which was filed on 18-7-1990 was to be filed within three years and the limitation even at the most if deemed to have commenced with effect from 18-6-1986 the three years period could be counted till 15-6- 1989 whereas the suit which was filed on 18-7-1990 was apparently barred by time, this finding of both the Courts below is confirmed through the perusal of record.
7. So far issues Nos.1, 3 and 4 are concerned, these were not agitated before the learned Additional District Judge who according to para.7 of the judgment recorded his findings and confirmed the finding of the learned Civil Judge.
8. So far Issues Nos.5 and 6 are concerned, it was held, that Mst. Begum Bibi was the owner of the property and vide Mutation No,340 dated 16-12-1974 she sold it in favour of defendants Nos.1 and 2 and onus to prove that this property was not sold by Mst. Begum Bibi was affirmed. Mst. Begum Bibi died on 2-4-1982 and limitation had commenced in her life time but she did not challenge for a period of 8 years and as such the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of learned Civil Judge in respect of these issues. I have also perused the record with the help of learned counsel for both the parties and could not find any illegality in both the judgments impugned.
9. Taking the strength from law laid down in Aurangzeb v. Muhammad Jaffar and another 2007 SCM R 236, Muhammad Zafarullah v. Muhammad Arif and others 2007 SCM R 589; Hakim-ud-Din v.
Faiz Bakhsh and others 2007 SCM R 870 and Rashid Ahmad v. Said Ahmad 2007 SCM R 926, wherein it is held that "findings on questions of fact or law, howsoever erroneous the same may be recorded by a Court of competent jurisdiction, cannot be interfered with by High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C., unless such findings suffer from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity".
10. After perusing both the judgments passed by the Courts below I do not find any illegality in the judgments, which could be a ground for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
' Resultantly, this civil revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.