1. ' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---This appeal, by leave, is directed against judgment dated 20-8-1989, of the Baluchistan High Court, passed in Civil Revision No, 122/89, whereby the judgment dated 31- 5-1989 of the Majlis-e-Shoora, Khuzdar, was upheld which in turn had set aside, the decree dated 30-7-1988, passed by Qazi Jhalawan and dismissed the suit filed by the appellants.
2. ' The appellants instituted suit on 26-9-1986, for a declaration and seeking correction of entries in the Revenue Record in respect of the land in dispute, measuring 57-1/2 acres situated in Mouza 'Matt', Tehsil Karak, District Khuzdar which were erroneously recorded by the Deputy Commissioner, Khuzdar, without notice to them. The appellants averred in the plaint that they were Mouroosi Bazgars in cultivating possession of the suit land, from the time of their forefathers. It was further pleaded that they being "occupancy tenants" of the suit land, acquired entitlement as to be substituted as owners of the land pursuant to notification dated 18-2-1977, issued by the Government of Baluchistan. They further claimed that the Collector, Kalat Division, by order dated 19-11-1979, accepted their claim and entered the names of the appellants in the Revenue Record, as owners in possession of the suit land but in the year 1985, the aforesaid entries in the Revenue Record were deleted and they were shown as "tenants-at-will".
3. ' Aggrieved by aforementioned entries, they instituted suit which was decreed by Qazi, Khuzadar, on 30-7-1988, but that decision was reversed in appeal by the Majlis-e-Shoora, Khuzadar, and maintained in revision by the High Court respectively.
4. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 6-3-1990, to consider whether the appellants were "Mouroosi Bazgars" or "Bazgars-at-will".
5. ' Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants were recorded as owners in possession of the suit land, pursuant to, order passed by the Collector, Kalat Division, on 19-11-1979, the entries to that effect, could not have been deleted by the Deputy Commissioner, Khuzadar, to show them as "tenants-at-will". It was further contended that the evidence on the record established that the appellants were "Mouroosi Bazgars" entitled to proprietary rights in the suit property, pursuant to the notification dated 18-2-1977, issued by the Provincial Government conferring proprietary rights on the "occupancy tenants" of the State land. On a question learned counsel admitted that Muhammad Ismail petitioner executed document dated 11-5-1985, whereby he surrendered his proprietary rights in the suit land and agreed to be recorded as "tenant-at-will" in the Revenue Record. He, however, stated that this document was procured under undue influence and coercion. He also admitted the execution of the document dated 12-6-1971, in respect of the suit property, whereby the appellants agreed to cultivate the land owned by the Provincial Government, but contended that the appellants were already in possession of the suit land and they were not inducted in possession thereof, under the aforementioned agreement. Learned counsel was unable to give satisfactory reply to another Court question, as to why the document dated 11-5-1985, was not specifically challenged in the suit, which was filed on 26-9-1986 i,e, after about a year from execution of the aforesaid document. Learned counsel, however, submitted that the document dated 11-5-1985, was executed only by Muhammad Ismail appellant alone and it could not bind Mullah Bakhsh, his brother. The perusal of document dated 11-5-1985, reveals that Muhammad Ismail acted, as attorney on behalf of his brother Mullah Bakhsh while executing the document.
6. The evidence on record duly appraised by the "Majlis-e-Shoora" and learned Judge of the High Court, proved that the appellants occupied the suit land as "tenants-at-will" and the entries showing them as "Mouroosi Bazgars" were wrongly recorded, which were corrected by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, on the statement made in writing by the appellants. The appellants did not directly challenge in the suit the document dated 11-5-1985, whereby they agreed for rectification of the entries, so as to be recorded as "tenants-at-will" clearly shows that the findings of the Majlis-eShoora confirmed by the High Court in this regard are unexceptionable. Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss it with no order as to costs.