1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Dhanai and Jewan petitioners and is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 3rd October, 1981.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the disputed area, it is alleged, was gifted to the petitioners in the year 1974 by their father Malka respodent No,5. But despite that respondent No,5 submitted a declaration in terms of section 7 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 and he included the disputed area in his estate. As a result the respondents resumed the said area on the ground that it had been surrendered by the declarant. The petitioners therefore filed a suit for declaration that they were owners in possession of the tract of land gifted in their favour. Thereafter they moved an application before the Deputy Land Commissioner and sought for the exclusion of the said area from the declaration made by respondent No,5 so that the gift could be kept intact. However their application was rejected. Their appeal and revision petition met the same fate. They eventually challenged the aforesaid orders by way of writ petition which was likewise dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore on the ground that since the gift had never been-incorporated in the Revenue record, and respondent No,5, their father, did not exclude that area from his declaration, and even did not mention that the same had been gifted, the obtaining of the decree of the Civil Court without impleading the Land Commission as a party could not improve the case of the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners before us attempted to argue that respondent No,5, i,e. The father of the petitioners aged about 90 years was totally illiterate, had very weak eye-sight, was hard of hearing and could hardly walk about without the help of another person and that therefore he had mistakenly declared the gifted portion of the estate as part of his holding. We do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel. The petitioners had obtained from the Civil Court an ex parte decree against their father namely respondent No,5 and even the Land Commission had not been impleaded as a party. In our view it is not a lit case for grant of leave. The petition is therefore dismissed.