' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against judgment, dated 5-12-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No,781 of 1991.
2. Mst. Kishwar Sultana, the respondent No,1 filed a suit to call in question validity of Mutation No,127 of 1997 of inheritance sanctioned on 19-11-1957 on the ground that she was daughter of Cheragh Din deceased and his widow Mst. Wazir Begum, the petitioner No,4 and real sister of the other petitioners and was, therefore, entitled, to inherit the share of the property of her deceased father.
The petitioners denied their relationship with the respondent No, 1 . The suit of the respondent No,1 was dismissed by the Civil Court, Sheikhupura on 8-11-1987 on the issue of limitation. The appeal of the respondent No,1 was accepted on 7-4-1991 and the suit was decreed by the AdditiOnal District Judge. The Civil Revision No,781 of 1991 filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the impugned judgment of, the Lahore High Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the relationship of the respondent No,1 with Cheragh Din deceased had not been proved. Even in the absence of any cross objections the petitioners were entitled to question the legality of the findings of the Civil Court on other issues during the course of hearing of the appeal. The suit of the respondent No,1 was hit by the principles of res judicata as she had earlier filed a similar suit. It was lastly contended that the suit of the respondent No,1 was hopelessly time-barred.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. All the Courts recorded concurrent findings of fact that the respondent No,1 was real daughter of Cheragh Din deceased and was, therefore, entitled to inherit the property of her father. The Appellate Court as well as the High Court also recorded findings of fact that the suit of respondent No,1 being that of a co-owner of the land was within time. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent No,1 had filed any earlier suit against the petitioners for the same relief and cause of action between the same parties and that the same was dismissed on merits. The findings of fact recorded by the Courts do not suffer from any legal infirmity. No substantial question of law of public importance is involved in this case.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition for leave to appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.