JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--- This revision petition filed by the petitioners/defendants impugns the concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court dated 2.2.1988 and of the learned lower Appellate Court dated 11.1.1995. The facts of this case are straightforward. Ghulam Haider respondent/plaintiff filed a suit claiming declaration of title in respect of 1/5th share in a khata measuring 24 kanals, 8 marlas being equivalent to 4 kanals, 8 marlas situated in Mauza Wasoo, Tehsil and District Mandi Bahauddin. The two Courts below, after examining the evidence on record, including the revenue record, have come to the conclusion that Ghulam Haider was, indeed, owner of the suit land. As a consequence, the declaration and the consequential relief prayed for was granted by the Courts below.
2. Before me, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants has argued that they had acquitted title in the land through a Form RL-11, dated 30.8.1952 (Ex.D1) issued in their favour by the Settlement Department. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants has stated that the revenue record was not correctly kept and was confusing. According to him, the Government was shown as owner in the khata and was, therefore, entitled to transfer its share to the petitioners/defendants.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the fact that the Government was a joint owner in the khata and could, therefore, transfer its interest. However, according to him, the interest, which was transferred to the petitioners/defendants., were more than the entitlement of the Government.
4. I have gone through the entire record, with the assistance of both learned counsel and note that the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs was strictly in accordance with his entitlement shown in the revenue record. I have also been informed that the joint khata has since been partitioned and the co-owners of the khata have been allocated land in the khata in accordance with their respective entitlements. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners was not able to refer to any such jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below which would call for interference therein while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. .