' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- This petition is directed against the judgment dated 30-11-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, through which second appeal filed by the respondent has been accepted and after setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, judgment and decree of the trial Court restored.
2. The sale of land made in favour of the petitioners was preempted by the respondent by filing suit. Though the defendants-petitioners Nos.4---6 and 8 were minors but in the plaint, neither any such indication was given nor their next friend appointed. The suit was contested by the said respondent. The trial Court through judgment dated 28-11-1972 decreed the suit by holding that the respondent-plaintiff was proved to be owner in the same Khata. In appeal however, an objection was raised by the petitioners that defendants Nos.4---6 and 8 were minors, therefore, formal order should have been passed to sue them through their next friend on the ground of which the appeal was accepted and the case remanded to sue the said defendants through their next friend i.e, the other defendant who had contested the suit. Fresh written statement was filed and evidence recorded. In the original proceedings before the remand, Exh.P.1 a copy of Jamabandi was produced in evidence by the respondent-plaintiff, to prove that he was owner in the same Khata.
After remand and framing additional .Issues, on 23-5-1982, a statement was made by the learned counsel for the respondent that he would rely upon the evidence already led in the case to which according to copy of record, no objection was taken on behalf of the petitioners. The said document Exh.P.1. Was, therefore, also relied upon in support of his case by the respondent-plaintiff even after remand of the case. The trial Court again decreed the suit on 1-12-1982. In appeal filed by the petitioners however, it was held that the respondent-plaintiff was proved to be owner of residential portion of the said Khata measuring 10 Marlas over which a house had been constructed, therefore, he was held to be not owner of the agricultural land in the same Khata as such appeal was accepted through judgment dated 26-10-1986 and the suit dismissed against which second appeal filed by the respondent has been accepted through the impugned judgment dated 30-11-2001 against which leave is sought.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Exh.P.1, the documentary evidence on which reliance was placed by the respondent could not be read in evidence against those minor- defendants who were impleaded through their next friend after remand therefore, the respondent shall be deemed to have failed to prove qua them that he was owner in the Khata. As has been already observed on 23-5-1982, the statement of learned counsel for the respondent was that he would rely upon the evidence already led in the case to which no objection was taken. Even otherwise the first Appellate Court relied upon the same documentary evidence to hold that the respondent was proved to be owner in the same Khata of a residential portion and not of agricultural land.
' A bare reading of the said document reveals that as a matter of fact, respondent was owner in the same Khata of land measuring 48 Kanals out of which over an area of 10 Marlas, a house had been constructed. The said land was held to have been assessed to land revenue, therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge was held to be based on misreading of the said documentary evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that reading of the said document shows that in the ownership column, the respondent was shown to be owner of that portion of land over which a house had been constructed measuring 10 Marlas.
6. In our considered view, this is not the correct reading of the said document. The entry in the ownership column is in the name of the respondent which would relate to the entire land mentioned in the Khata according to the well-established principle of appraisal and construction of the Revenue Record, therefore, the findings of the First Appellate Court that the respondent was the owner in the said Khata only to the extent of land measuring 10 Marlas over which a house had been constructed were certainly based on acute misreading of the record.
7. The findings recorded by the High Court affirming the findings of the trial Court in favour of the respondent, do not suffer from any misreading or misconstruction of any material piece of evidence, therefore, this petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.