' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---It appears from the record that Mst. Zaitoon petitioner; her two brothers namely, Bashir and Shabbir and her sister namely Mst. Rafiqa, jointly owned an Ihata in Chak No,41 W.B. Of Tehsil Vehari. From the record it further transpires that the respondents before us started to lay claim on the said Ihata on the strength of an agreement (Exh.P.1), dated 27-10-1979 allegedly executed by all the above mentioned owners and which agreement also stood registered with the Sub-Registrar. Mst. Zaitoon petitioner filed a suit against the alleged vendees (respondents before us) of the said Ihata by also impleading her own above mentioned sister and two brothers as defendants, seeking a declaration that the said agreement was illegal, unenforceable and ineffective as against her. She also prayed that possession of the suit property be delivered to her and the agreement in question be cancelled. Through his judgment, dated 14-11-1986 the learned trial Judge found the execution of the above mentioned agreement proved but decreed the suit of Mst. Zaitoon plaintiff-petitioner on the ground that such an agreement was violative of the provisions of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act of 1912. The vendees i.e, the present respondents, questioned the said judgment and decree, dated 24-11-1986 by way of an appeal and the legal heirs of Mst. Zaitoon petitioner filed cross-objections vis-a-vis the finding of the learned Trial Judge about the execution of the document in question. A learned Additional District Judge at Vehari, through his judgment, dated 24-11-1986, accepted the cross-objections of Mst. Zaitoon; reversed the finding of the Trial Court about execution of the agreement and dismissed the appeal filed by the present respondents who then approached the Lahore High Court through Civil Revision No,127 of 1987. This revision petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court with a modification that the suit of Mst. Zaitoon plaintiff shall be aeemed to have been decreed only to the extent of her rights in the suit property. Hence this petition by Mst. Zaitoon plaintiff.
2. We have examined the record and the three judgments in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. It was on the strength of the judgments delivered by this Court in Hakim Ali's case and Sher Muhammad's case reported as 1981 SCM R 993 and 1994 SCM R 470 respectively, that the Hon'ble Revisional Court concluded that the transfer in question was not in violation of the provisions of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act of 1912. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not show as to how the said finding of the learned Appellate and the Hon'ble Revisional Court were open to any exception. The learned Revisional Court was also justified in holding that the agreement in question could not be declared to be invalid vis-a-vis the other three alleged executants thereof i.e, the two brothers of Mst. Zaitoon plaintiff and her sister because none of them despite having been arrayed as defendants in the suit, had come forward to deny the execution of the said agreement by them. In this view of the matter, we find that the conclusions reached and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court were unexceptionable.
4. This petition is therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.