' SHAH JEHAN KHAN YOUSAFZAI, J.---This Revision Petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the two courts below whereby petitioners were non-suited for the requisite declaration etc.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners who contended that the suit-land was originally owned by Ghulam Hussain and Akram Khan, who happened to be his nephew, sold the entire land of his own as well as of Ghulam Hussain and the petitioners/plaintiffs are in continuous possession of it. Subsequently, when the alleged legal heirs of Ghulam Hussain sold the suit-land through Mutation No, 996 attested on 26-2-1989 to the respondents, the petitioners brought the suit on the basis of Mutation No, 4481 attested on 30-8-2000 by Akram Khan on his own behalf as well as on behalf of Ghulam Hussain in favour of Baz Gul. The trial Court framed issues arising from pleading of the parties and after recording pro and contra evidence of the parties, suit of the petitioners was dismissed which was also upheld by the lower appellate Court.
3. The learned counsel representing the respondents on preadmission notice states that Ghulam Hussain and Abbas Khan were brothers inter se and Akram Khan is their nephew from whom the petitioners allegedly purchased the suit-land through the aforesaid mutation, there is no mentioning of Ghulam Hussain in the sale mutation and even otherwise, there is nothing on record to show that Akram Khan had sold the share of Ghulam Hussain with his due consent or due to his inability. Since Ghulam Hussain was continuously recorded as owner of his share, the same was inherited by the respondents and inheritance Mutation No, 996 was attested on 26-2-1989.
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, I arrive at the conclusion that it was the heavy burden of the plaintiffs/petitioners to substantiate the averments of plaint through cogent evidence but they have miserably been failed to discharge their burden. On the other hand, the respondents, derived inheritance from Ghulam Hussain, who has been continuously recorded owner in the Revenue Record and the disputed property owned by him, has rightly been devolved upon them. In these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of petitioners which was also upheld by the lower appellate Court. I found no merit in this Revision Petition which is hereby dismissed in limine.