ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: --Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 12-8-1990.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration of ownership in respect of the suit land and for cancellation of sale by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2. According to the petitioner, the land was gifted to her by her father 22 years before filing of the suit. The suit was contested by the respondents. Their plea was that the land belonged to respondents Nos.1 and 3 and that about 40 years back their predecessor had given the suit land to 1st respondent and Mst.
Aisha but on 27-5-1984 the first respondent and Mst. Aisha sold out the land to 2nd respondent for a consideration of Rs. 34,000. The learned Qazi by means of judgment dated 30-7-1989 dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Majlis-i-Shoora set aside the dismissal order and the case was remanded to the trial Court. By judgment dated 10-4-1990, the suit was decreed. The respondents filed an appeal before the Majlis-i-Shoora, Khuzdar. By the judgment dated 22-5-1990, the Majlis-i- Shoora set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Qazi and dismissed the suit. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment. The High Court after assessing the evidence came to the conclusion that P.Ws. Lal Muhammad, Muhammad Ali, and Illahi Bakhsh have not supported the claim of the petitioner. The evidence of two witnesses is extremely vague and sketchy. The High Court further observed that the settlement operation was carried out towards 1980-81 but the entries were not challenged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is cousin of the vendor and she had given her land for cultivation as she had gone to Sindh after marriage. This contention has not been proved through any evidence. P.W.4 Abdullah stated that the land was given by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 her cousin. The learned counsel has admitted that the petitioner's brothers are tenants in some other land. It has not been established that the suit land was ancestral property of the petitioner. The possession of the respondents is undisputed. In the settlement operation, the entries are in their favour.
4. Learned counsel for the caveator submitted that the suit land belonged to Sardar Mir Faqir Muhammad Khan and others and the respondents were in possession of the land as tenant and they had purchased the land from the original owner.
5. The evidence has been properly appreciated by the Courts. There is no misreading of evidence.
This petition has no force. The same is consequently dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.