1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Waris Khan and others petitioners herein, call in question the judgment dated 3-2-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, whereby their Revision Petition No, 257 of 1992 against the judgment of the appellate Court dated 7-5-1992 was dismissed.
2. ' The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Colonel Humayun Shah and others, respondents, filed a suit against Waris Khan and others, petitioners, for declaration and perpetual injunction to the effect that they are owners of the suit land described in the heading of the plaint and that the entries in the Revenue Record in the name of the defendants/petitioners are wrong and ineffective on their rights and for settlement of accounts regarding the compensation which the defendants/petitioners have received. The saline was duly contested, necessary issues in the case were framed, evidence led pro and contra thereon recorded and the learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 17-2-1991, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents. The defendants/petitioners preferred appeal before the Additional District Judge which was dismissed.
3. Their revision petition was also dismissed vide the impugned order. Hence the instant petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' We have heard Haji Bashir Ahmed, Advocate, for the petitioners; Mian Hisamuddin Khan, Advocate, for the respondents; and have perused the record of the case with their assistance.
5. ' It is not denied that the entries of the Jamabandis after 1942-43 have been changed without any mutation of alienation by the plaintiffs/respondents or their predecessor. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argued that the plaintiffs prayed for correction of the Revenue Record for which their remedy was before the revenue officer under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and not before the Civil Court for declaration of title and that the lower forums have exceeded their jurisdiction in entertaining the suit and granting the decree prayed for. He also stressed that the suit was hopelessly barred by time. This aspect of the case has been duly considered by the lower three forums. The defendants/petitioners in their written statement have flatly denied the title of the plaintiffs/respondents to the suit land and therefore only the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the respective titles of the parties regarding the joint property and the correctness or otherwise of the Revenue Record. Even if the plaintiffs/respondents had gone to the Revenue Authorities for correction of the Revenue Record still the incorrect entries being very old and the question of prescriptive title being involved the defendants/petitioners would have not only objected to corrections through summary process but would have questioned their jurisdiction on account of laches and limitation. Admittedly, the suit property is recorded as joint ownership of the parties and since the possession of one co-sharer is possession of all, though in this case physical possession of none of the parties is established the land being Banjer Qadeem and no question of limitation or adverse possession arose in the instant litigation. All the lower three forums have concurrently held the plaintiffs/respondents owners of the suit land and have declared the revenue entries as incorrect.
6. ' We do not find any legal error in the impugned judgments of the lower forums and accordingly dismiss the instant petition and refuse leave to appeal.