1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The question was whether the petitioner's contention to the effect that the land in dispute was, in fact, purchased from Noor Zaman, who admittedly was its owner, but instead the name of his brother Yasin had been erroneously entered as its vendor in the mutation record, was well-founded.
2. This question has been fully gone into by the Courts below and the last judgment in this respect was rendered by the High Court and after a thorough examination of all the circumstances the High Court concluded as follows:- "It was for the plaintiff (petitioner herein) to prove the sale. In my judgment, evidence on record is insufficient to hold that the plaintiff (petitioner herein) had purchased the suit property from Noor Zaman as alleged and the name of Yasin was erroneously entered in the mutation foil. The question whether the land was purchased by Sualiheen (petitioner herein) from Noor Zaman or Yasin is essentially a question of fact and it is hardly open to the petitioner to challenge it unless he can show that the finding is without evidence. Conclusion of the Court below that sale by Noor Zaman was not established, cannot be disturbed in revision. Accordingly, civil revision fails and is dismissed in limine."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any evidence or circumstance which might show that the above conclusion of the High Court is wrong. Dismissed.