1. DORAB PATEL, J. -The dispute in this petition relates to agricultural land measuring about 118 kanals in Gujrat District and according to the petitioners, their father had acquired it by exchange from the respondent, but the respon--dent was a minor and any contract by a minor would be void. In order to overcome this difficulty, Mr. Maqbool Ilahi advanced various alternative sub--missions which we will presently examine. We would, however, first observe that in the events that happened, the father of the petitioners filed a suit against the minor respondent for a declaration that he was entitled to land owned by the minor respondent which he had acquired in exchange through Saee the maternal grandfather of the respondent minor. "This suit was decreed by a Civil Judge on 12-2- 1979, therefore, the father of the minor respondent filed an appeal in the District Court, Lahore, and by his judgment dated 2-4-1980, a learned Additional District Judge, allowed the appeal or, the short ground that the maternal grandfather of the minor respondent had no authority under Muhammadan Law to exchange his property with any one else.
2. As the father of the petitioners had died meanwhile the petitioners filed a revision in the Lahore High Court which w s dismissed on 22-4-1980 and in dismissing the revision, the learned Judge pointed out that the only point on which the revision was pressed was "that the contract made by the mother (of the minor respondent), who was the natural guardian of the minor was valid". The learned Judge then pointed out that he had granted time to the peti--tioner's learned counsel to produce authority in support of extraordinary pro--position submitted by him but he was not able to do so, and, therefore, he dismissed the revision by his orderdated 22-4-1980.
3. Mr. Maqbool Ilahi submitted that the exchange effected by Saee and/or the mother of the minor respondent was in the interest of the minor. This submission was vehemently denied by Mr. Nasim Hassan. Now, the question whether the alleged exchange was for the benefit of the minor or not was a question of fact and as the High Court would not have examined it, in its limited revisional jurisdiction, this plea was very rightly dropped by the learned counsel, who had appeared for the petitioner in the High Court, and therefore, we cannot possibly grant leave to examine it.
4. The only point for examination in this petition is whether the exchange; relied upon by the petitioner was effected by a person, who had been appoint--ed by the Court as the Guardian of the minor.
5. And, at one stage of the` case, Mr. Maqbool Ilahi went to the length of contending that Saee the maternal grandfather of the minor respondent had been appointed as the minor respondent's guardian. In support of this submission he referred us to a passage in the judgment of the Civil Judge, who pointed out that the claim: of the father of the petitioners was that Saee had filed an.
6. Application for his appointment as the guardian of the minor. But, as the application was lost, the Civil Judge reached the conclusion that this application had been allowed. Now, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the caveator if Saee had filed an application for his appointment as the guardian of the minor respon--dent notice would have gone to Salehoon, the father of the minor res--ident. But, without attempting to examine whether this notice had been given, the Civil Judge reached the conclusion that Saee had bees appointed the guardian of the minor by the Court. The conclusion thus reached is perverse and we have not been referred to a shred of evidence. To show that Saee had been appointed the guardian of the minor respondent.
7. Mr. Maqbul Ilahi, thererefore, said that the mother of the minor had also agreed to the exchange.
8. Even if she did, as rightly pointed out by the learned Judge neither she nor Saee, her father had any authority whatever to exchange the minor's property with that of the father of the petitioners and the judgment of the Civil Judge was contrary to the settled law. It has been rightly set aside. The petition is utterly devoid of merit and is dismissed with. Costs.