1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This petition concerns property bear--ing municipal Nos. 7-3/17 to 21, situated on Wafa Road, Quetta. The property along with other properties situated in Quetta and Gujranwala originally belonged to one Fazal Dad. Fazal Dad died leaving three sons, Allah Ditta, Maula Bux and Allah Bux. Petitioner Fazal Karim is the son, Mst. Iqbal Begum the daughter and Mst.
2. Said Bibi, the widow of Maula Bux who died in 1956.
3. Allah Bux filed a suit on the 23rd June 1958 against Syed Yar Mohammed, Fazal Karim, Mst. Iqbal Begum and Mst. Said Bibi for a declaration that the property in suit belonged exclu--sively to the plaintiff. Syed Yar Mohammed was the decree holder in a money suit against Maula Bux. The plaintiff's case wits that in accordance with an amicable arrangement dated the 27th March 1932, which was presided over by Syed Ahmad Shah son of Syed Ghulam Yasin, the property. Had been given to the plaintiff exclusively.
4. The respondents on the other hand claimed that the property was jointly owned by the two brothers, Maula Bux and Allah Bux. On the death of Maula Bux his heirs Fazal Karim, Mst. Iqbal Begum and Mst. Said Bibi succeeded to the joint owner--ship of the property with Allah Bux. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of Allah Bux and held that the property belonged exclusively to him This finding was accepted by defendant Syed Yar Muhammad Shah.
5. On appeal, however, by the other three defendants the learned District Judge reversed the decision of the trial Court and dis--missed the suit. It was held that the amicable arrangement of partition as contained in Exh. O/A having been unregistered and unstamped, was inadmissible in evidence, and consequently it did not create any exclusive interest in the disputed property in favour of Allah Bux.
6. Allah Bux preferred a second appeal before the High Court and a learned Single Judge of the Court allowed the appeal and held that Allah Bux was the sole and exclusive owner of the disputed property.
7. The defendants' Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal by the petitioners, who are son and daughter of the late Maula Bux. Reespondents I and 2 are the sons of Allah Bux deceased and respondent No. 3 is the widow of late Syed Yar Mohammad Shah defendant.
8. It has been contended before us that the award or family arrangement having been inadmissible in evidence it could not be relied on for holding that Allah Bux became the exclusive owner of the property in dispute. It was submitted that if this document was excluded from evidence there was hardly anything left in support of the finding. It appears from the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that besides the oral evidence including those of Allah Ditta, another brother of Allah Bux and Maula Bux, and of D.W. 4 Mistri Nathu several documents in which Maula Bux admitted about the aforesaid amicable partition and the exclusive ownership of Allah Bux were relied on by the Court to hold that the property in dispute was the exclusive property of Allah Bux.
9. Among these docu--ments are Exhs. Y/R and P/S. Exh. r/R is a Power of Attorney dated 21-11-1956 executed by Maula Bux in favour of his son Fazal Karim for the purpose of correcting certain entries in the Revenue record which erroneously mentioned both Maula Bux and Allah Bux as joint owners of the property. Exh. P/S are the corrected entries to the mutation records showing Allah Bux as the sole owner of the disputed property. The High Court overruled the defendants' objection to the admissibility of the Power of Attorney on the ground that no such objection had been raised before the trial Court. Besides Fazal Karim admitted the contents and purpose of the document in his evidence, It is, therefore, evident that there were sufficient reliable evidence on the basis of which it was held that the property exclusively belonged to Allah Bux. The learned Judge further found that the amicable partition was acted upon and the parties had taken possession of their respective properties thereunder.
10. Although the aforesaid document of amicable partition could not be relied on for the purpose of proving the partition itself, it can nevertheless be relied on for the purpose of lending support to the plaintiff's claim that he was in exclusive possession of the property in question. Certain mortgage deeds in respect of the property which were jointly executed by MaulaBux and Allah Bux were sought to be pressed into service to show that the property was in the joint ownership of the two brothers. The learned Judge rightly repelled this and stated that they were so executed evi--dently for the reason that till 1941 no changes were made in the Revenue records with regard to the properties left by Fazal Dad and the mortgagees might have insisted on a joint execution of the I deeds by the two brothers. The learned Judge also held that Maula Bux by his conduct showed that he relinquished his claim, if any, in the property.
11. For the reasons stated above we do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact by the High Court. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed as without any substance.