1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Sardar Anwar Ali and others, appellants herein, successors-in- interest of Akbar Ali Khan, filed a declaratory suit against Sardar Baqir All Khan and others claiming to be joint owners in the suit property alongwith them being the descendants of common ancestor; that the entries of the revenue record wherefrom their names were omitted are wrong, illegal, based on fraud and collusion of the defendants/respondents; and that they need correction.
2. Prayer for perpetual injunction was also sought to restrain the defendants/respondents from alienating the suit property in any way and possession was also sought. The suit was contested by the defendants/respondents, and they in their written statement not only denied the joint ownership of the suit property but disclaimed their alleged relationship with them. Necessary issues in the case were framed, evidence led thereon recorded and the learned trial Judge, vide his judgment and decree dated 31-5-1989, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants holding that they had not proved themselves to be the collaterals of the defendants/respondents nor joint owners with them and that the entries of the reveune record correctly showed the defendants/respondents as owners of the suit land. The appeal filed against it was also dismissed vide judgment dated 24-2-1991 and so was the revision petition filed before the High Court vide judgment dated 7-9-1991 delivered by the learned Chief Justice. The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal vide Civil Petition No,235-P/91 which was heard on 13-5-1992 and converted into appeal as reappraisal of the documents placed on the record was felt necessary. Hence the instant appeal through leave of the Court.
3. ' The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/appellants had left the village and had settled elsewhere on account of blood fued and that the ancestors of the defendants/respondents who were influential and were holding important posts in the Revenue Department, manoeuvred to show the predecessor-ininterest of the plaintiffs/respondents; namely, Atai Khan as issueless and got his property entered in their names as full ownership. He alleged that the plaintiffs/appellants had been receiving their share of produce and when they came to know that their names did not find mention in the revenue record they felt the necessity of filing the present suit. Reliance was placed on the pedigree-table Exh.P.W.2/1. The learned counel for the respondents, on the other hand, reiterated the grounds mentioned in the judgments of the lower three forums and submitted that the copy produced is not an authentic document; that the A.D.K. Was the proper person to produce the original Shajra-i- Nasb and the other record-of-rights; and that no efforts were made by the plaintiffs/appellants to link themselves with the said Atai Khan.
4. ' The plaintiffs/appellants in support of their allegations produced the Patwari Halqa and Muhammad Rafique besides the statement of Anwar Ali Khan plaintiff/appellant himself as P.W.2.
5. The defendants/respondents rest contented with the statements of Sardar Muhammad Hayat defendant No,4 and Malik Umra Khan defendant No,5 and relied on the copies of the revenue record in support of their case. It is not disputed by the plaintiffs/appellants that they are neither shown as co-owners in the ownership column nor shown in possession of any part of the suit property rather it is conceded by them that the suit land had throughout been shown as exclusive ownership of the defendants/respondents. The burden of proof, therefore, heavily lay upon them to affimatively establish that their ancestor was joint owner with the ancestor of the defendants/respondents. There is no evidence in this respect oral or documentary on the file. As stated earlier, the palintiffs/appellants rely on the copy of the Shajra-i-Nasb Exh. P.W.2/1 wherein Yousaf Khan is shown as the first cousin of Khan Baba Khan and others ancestors of the defendants/respondents. Yousaf Khan is shown as survived by Sher Ali Khan, Afzal Khan and Asif Khan, the latter shown survived by Atai Khan who died issueless. The plaintiffs/appellants' case is that Atai Khan was survived by his son Haider Ali Khan who was the grandfather of Anwar Ali Khan and others plaintiffs/appellants. This pedigree-table is alleged to be of the year 1895-96. The plaintiffs/appellants failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that Haider Ali, their alleged predecessor, was the son of Atai Khan and in the absence of any evidence oral or documentary their bald allegation that Atai Khan was their great-grandfather cannot be accepted particularly when claim to huge property is invovled. Even this document cannot come to their rescue because there is a note on this very document that the heirs of Yousaf Khan; namely, Sher Ali Khan, Afzal Khan and Asif Khan have sold their property in favour of Khanan Khan (7 Bakhras (shares)) predecossor-in-interest of the defendants/respondents alongwith share of Shamilat and the remaining 8 Bakhras in favour of Niaz Muhammad and others sons of Dost Muhammad with share of Shamilat. As such, even if it is assumed that the plaintiffs/appellants are descendants of the said Yousaf Khan, even then they were left with no proprietary rights in the estate even according to the pedigree-table 1895-96 produced by themselves. The suit land is consistently recorded in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants/respondents and in the names of their successors for the last about a century and during this long period Jamabandis were prepared and alienations were effected resulting in the incorporation of the transferees as owners in the revenue record but no efforts were made by the plaintiffs/appellants or their ancestors to correct them. The present suit filed by them after such a long time was hopelessly barred by time as well, in the above context.
6. All the three forums have concurrently held the defendants/respondents as owners of the suit property, the entries of the revenue record correctly showing them as proprietors and that the plaintiffs/appellants not proved to be joint owners with them. These findings are essentially findings of fact and are not open to challenge at this stage when no illegality, jurisdictional error, or misreading, or non-reading of evidence could be pointed out.
7. ' Resultantly, finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.