1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Haji Fazal Shah and others, petitioners herein, call in question the judgment dated 15-5-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, whereby he accepted Revision Petition No,101/86 filed by Shahbaz Khan, respondent herein, set aside the judgment and decree dated 30-11-1985 passed by the Appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court dated 7-12-1983 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff Saadullah, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 5.
2. ' We have heard Mr. M. Ismail Fehmi, Advocate, for the petitioners, and have persued the record of the case.
3. ' Admittedly Khasra No, 1149 is contiguous to suit Khasra Nos. 1151 to 1154 and on the basis of this contiguity, the suit of the deceased/plaintiff Saadullah was decreed qua Khasra Nos. 1151 to 1154 and his suit with regard to Khasra No, 1168, over which he had not been able to prove his superior right of pre-emption, was dismissed. Khasra No, 1149 is recorded as Shamilat-i-deh in the record- of-rights and the deceased/plaintiff being co-owner in the Shamilat had established his right of pre-emption and secured decree from the trial Court. However, the Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 30-11-1985, did not agree with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court and held that Khasra No, 1149 having been consistently recorded as "Ghair Mumkin Qabristan"
4. (graveyard) in the possession of Ahl-i-Islam has ceased to be the ownership of the proprietary body of the village and shall be presumed to be dedicated property as "Waqf' on account of long user as "Ghair Mumkin Qabristan". He relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Peshawar High Court reported as PLD 1968 Peshawar 181. Consequently, he accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the deceased/plaintiff in toto. However, the learned High Court set aside the judgment of the appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court.
5. ' The only question requiring consideration is whether on the basis of the entries of Jamabandis produced in the case the appellate Court could deprive the recorded owners of the ownership rights in Khasra No, 1149 without any specific allegation made in the written statement that Khasra No, 1149 is a "Waqf' property and has ceased to be the ownership of the proprietary body of the village and that too, without their impleadment as a party to the case which apparently was a suit for pre-emption. The perusal of the Jamabandis would show that entire Khasra No, 1149 was recorded for some time as "Ghair Mumkin Qabristan" in the possession of Ahl-i-Islam but subsequently in the year 1946-47 and 1950-51 part of the land was shown in the possession of cultivators as 'Gila Lagan Bawaja Bei" (URDU TEXT). In the next Jamabandis of 1954-55 and 1958-59 the entire land is recorded as under Abadi except 1 Kanal shown as Nehri on account of sales through different sale mutations referred to in the remarks column of the Jamabandis and duly incorporated in the cultivators columns in the subsequent record-ofrights. These alienations are more than twenty years old and nobody has challenged their authenticity in the proper forum.
6. Needless to emphasise, that presumption of truth is attached to the entries of Jamabandis and since the ownership column of the record-on-rights shows that land as the ownership of the shamilat-i-deh viz., proprietary body of the village, the presumption would be that it is the ownership of the proprietary body of the village. The defendants/petitioners have failed to bring any evidence, oral or documentary, on the file to suggest, muchless to prove, that the entire Khasra number was ever dedicated by the owners for Qabristan. According to the latest Jamabandis, referred to above, photo copies produced in Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners at our asking, almost the entire land is under Abadi and in the possession of the owners sold away to them from time to time. The question of extinction of the ownership rights on account of long user as Qabristan (graveyard) regarding the entire Khasra number, therefore, does not arise.
7. ' Resultantly, we do not find any legal flaw in the impugned judgment of the High Court and decline leave to appeal. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.