ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 28-1-1990.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land mentioned in his plaint with consequential relief that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the possession and title of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the land originally belonged to Hussain son of Bhaka, the father of Mirza and Azeem, respondents No.1 and 2, who sold 7 Kanals 6 Marlas in favour of Mohammad Ajaib Atta Mohammad son of Mohammad Zaman vide mutation No. 523 but later on he got it cancelled and sold the same to Abdul Haleem, father of the petitioner vide Mutation No.529 but the Revenue Officer while canceling Mutation No.523 rejected Mutation No.529 on 26-2-1955. Thereafter, the respondents No.1 and 2 also sold the remaining land to the respondents 1 to 6. Since Azeem and Mirza sons of Hussain and Mst. Roshanal also filed a suit for possession of the same land against the petitioner and respondents No.4 and 5 wherein they averred that the suit land stood mortgaged with possession in favour of Makhan father of the respondents No. 4 to 6 and the mortgage was restituted at their instance through Collector Jhelum vide order dated 12-11-1973 on the basis of the same redemption Mutation No.1269 sanctioned on 19-11-1974. They alleged that the petitioner in collusion with respondents No. 4 to 6 managed to get his name incorporated in Jambandi of 1962- 63 shown as vendee. Both the suits were consolidated by the trial Judge and decided by one judgment. The suit of the petitioner was decreed on 23-1-1983 whereas the suit of the respondents was dismissed. The contesting respondents went in appeal against the said order which was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Jhelum remanding both the suits on 20-11-1985. After remand, issues were refrained. The suit of the petitioner was dismissed and that of the respondents 1 to 6 was decreed. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jhelum.
The petitioner then filed two Revision Petitions in the High Court against the appellate order but both the petitions were dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Additional District Judge and the learned High Court have misread the documentary and the oral evidence produced by the petitioner. He elaborated his argument by submitting that Mutation No.529 was attested in favour of the petitioner and this fact existed in the order dated 16-8-53 of the Revenue Officer whereby he cancelled the Mutation No.523. The learned counsel stated that the Revenue Officer in collaboration with respondents Nos.1 and 2 kept the petiti6ner in dark whether his father had filed any appeal against the order of rejection of Mutation No.523 or not. The petitioner has raised factual controversy which cannot be said by any stretch of imagination to be a point of law which requires adjudication by this Court. There are concurrent findings of fact by the Additional District Judge and the High Court that neither Husain nor the respondents themselves sold any portion of the suit land to Abdul Aziz or to his father Abdul Halim. The land had been in possession of the predecessor of respondents Nos.4 to 6 as mortgagee. The learned High Court has observed that Abdul Aziz, petitioner, could not prove the sale of any portion of the suit land in favour of his father.
The mutation was entered in favour of his father but that order ultimately was rejected. The so- called admission of Hussain predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos.1 to 3 in another mutation, which too was rejected, is of no avail to the petitioner. The Courts have considered the evidence adduced by the parties and then decided the matter against the petitioner on merits.
The learned counsel has referred to Exh.P. Relating to column of Lagan but this document would also not help the petitioner. This Court in Shad Mohammad v. Khan Poor (PLD 1986 SC 91) observed that "entries of column of Lagan, otherwise not corroborated by any evidence cannot take precedence over column of cultivation".
4. This is not a case for re-appraisal of evidence. No point of law is involved in this petition. Both these petitions have no force and they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused in both the petitions.