' This revision petition is directed against the concurrent judgments of the two Courts whereby the suit filed by the petitioner claiming title to the suit land on the basis of inheritance was dismissed.
2. The facts gathered from the record may be noted. Wali Muhammad, whom the petitioner claimed to be his father, died on 22-7-1957 (Exh.P.6). Mutation of inheritance bearing No,49 was attested in favour of the respondents on 10-5-1961 (Exh.P.3) to the exclusion of the petitioner. On 8- 5-1985, after about 24 years of the attestation of the said mutation, the petitioner filed the instant suit claiming share of inheritance as son of Wali Muhammad, the propositus. The suit was contested on which necessary issues were framed and it was tried.
3. Vide judgment and decree, dated 15-4-1987, the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed and his appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 1-10-1989. The learned two Courts concurrently arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was son of Wali Muhammad.
4. In support of this petition, the learned counsel has contended that the material evidence on record has been misread. He particularly relied on Exh.P.5. And the testimony of D.W.1 to contend that he was the son of Wali Muhammad.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the entire evidence produced on the record was considered by the learned two Courts and conclusion arrived at against the petitioner. According to him, even if another view of the evidence is possible no case is made out for interference in revisional jurisdiction. He also relied upon Exhs.D.2 to D.7, the birth entries of the sons and daughters of the petitioner in which the parentage of the petitioner was recorded as Ali Sher.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Vide Mutation No,386 attested on 23-7-1984 (Exh.P.5) Ali Sher had sold land measuring 5 Marlas to the petitioner. In this mutation, the parentage of the petitioner was recorded as Wali Muhammad. The said entry in this mutation could not be taken as substantive evidence and was not sufficient to establish parentage of the petitioner. As far as testimony of D.W.1 Muhammad Khan, husband of a sister of the petitioner is concerned, he stated that the name of the mother of the petitioner was Mst. Fatima, who was first married to Ali Sher and thereafter, she married Wali Muhammad. According to him, the petitioner had no concern, whatsoever, with the property of the respondents: It has come on the record that Ali Sher and Wali Muhammad were real brothers. Thus, the testimony of D.W.1 did not establish that the petitioner was son of Wali Muhammad. It rather established otherwise. Exh.D.2 to Exh.D.7 are the birth entries showing the birth of the children of the petitioner in 1963, 1966, 1971, 1974, 1979 and 1987. These entries were recorded after the death of Wali Muhammad and even in these entries (recorded by three different Chowkidars) the parentage of the petitioner was recorded as Ali Sher.
8. The petitioner appeared as P.W.3 and admitted that his children were born in Chak No,134/9-L (where these birth entires are recorded). I add that the learned two Courts have considered the evidence produced by the parties. Even if the entries of Exhs,D.2 to D.7 could not be taken as substantive evidence, the fact remains that it was at the most a case of the word against word. In that case, it is the plaintiff who fails, I have also noticed that the suit in this case was brought by the petitioner after 24 years of attestation of mutation. In the circumstances his silence cast serious doubts about his case. The matter stands concluded by concurrent finding of fact of the two learned Courts. No case is made out for interference. The revision petition, is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.