1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 7-11-2001 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed R.S.A. No.26 of 1988 filed by the petitioner maintaining the determinations of the Courts below.
2. ' The facts briefly stated are that Mst. Dauli, being a refugee from India, secured allotment of land measuring 151 Kanals, 9 Marlas in Chak No.530/G.B., Tehsil Samundari, District Faisalabad, against her verified claim. She died in the year 1963. After her death the petitioners succeeded in obtaining the disputed land claiming themselves to be her legal heirs. Mutation of inheritance was sanctioned on 3-1-1964 in favour of some of the petitioners while others filed an appeal before the Collector. While the matter was pending before the Collector, the respondents appeared and claimed the disputed property being the legal heirs of Mst. Dauli. Said appeal was accepted by the Collector and the case was remitted to AC. II. The respondents produced a pedigree-table and on the basis of the same a mutation was attested in their favour on 24-3-1966. An appeal was filed against the said order which was allowed by the Collector. The respondents assailed the order of the Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha, through his order, dated 23-2-1967 accepted the appeal. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, who after holding extensive enquiry dismissed the claim of the petitioners. He held it as a fact that the petitioners were not linked with Mst. Dauli.
3. ' Having failed on the Revenue side, the petitioners filed a declaratory suit taking exception to the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as claiming the disputed property, being the legal heirs of Mst. Dauli. Issues were framed, parties led their evidence and the learned Civil Judge, Samundari, through his judgment, dated 3-4-1979 dismissed the suit. The petitioners filed an appeal against the above judgment which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, vide his judgment, dated 9-1-1988. R.S.A. No.26 of 1988 preferred by the petitioners before the Lahore High Court also met the same fate and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge through his judgment, dated 7-11-2001, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the very beginning of the arguments, made a request for bringing on record two documents namely Fard-e-Haqqiat and Shajra Nasab secured by the petitioners from the Board of Revenue. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel and have gone through the entire documents appended with this petition. We must state, at the very outset, that these documents never saw the light of the day throughout this litigation spreading over nearly four decades before the Revenue Authorities as well as the Civil Courts. At this belated juncture such a prayer cannot be acceded to. As far as claim of the petitioners is concerned, they had miserably failed to substantiate the same not only before the Revenue Authorities but also before the Civil Courts. As reflected from the impugned orders, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, on a revision petition filed by the petitioners undertook a detailed enquiry so as to determine the correctness/genuineness of the pedigree-table P-15. Both the parties were afforded full opportunity and the petitioners utterly failed to substantiate the same. Even before the Civil Court the evidence brought on record from their side did not inspire confidence. The testimony of the witnesses brought from the petitioners' side is shaky and hearsay.
5. They failed to connect themselves with Mst. Dauli. It would be appropriate at this stage to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge while appreciating the evidence brought from their side which is in the following terms:-- ' "Learned counsel for the appellants has taken me through the said evidence: P. W.1 is Jafar Hussain. He was 45 years of age on 15-3-1971. The competency of this person as a witness of relationship being claimed by the appellants with the said. Mst. Dauli, can be easily judged by the very fact that he proceeded to state that he does not know the names of his grandfather. Be that as it may, he did proceed to link up the appellants with Mst. Dauli. However, in cross-examination he states that the facts stated by him were told to' him by his sister's brother and that he has no personal knowledge of the same. He states that he has not seen any of the said predecessor of the parties regarding whom he has made the statement except the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2.
6. P.W.2 is Muhammad Iqbal. He was aged 65 years on the said date. He also stated in cross- examination that he had not seen Gamun, Bundu Khan or Qutba. P. W.3 is Barkat Ali. He also stated in cross-examination that he has not seen all these persons. P.W.5 is Faqir Hussain, petitioner. He conceded that the pedigree he has pleaded in his examination-in-chief is based on hearsay. P.W.4 is Noor Ahmad Patwari, Central Record Office, Lahore who answered the interrogatories P.W.4/1 and P.W.4/2. This witness was cross-examined at length by the parties. He simply confirms what has already been held by the said Revenue Officers i.e. The original pedigree record has been tampered with."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any legal infirmity in the judgment impugned warranting interference by this Court.
8. ' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petition being without any force is dismissed and leave declined.