' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 26th May, 1999 passed by Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur whereby civil revision filed by petitioners has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 to 12 filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of subject land. The plaintiffs/respondents averred in the plaint that their predecessor-in-interest namely Ghulam Ali and Sawan were real brothers. Both had inherited equal shares in the suit-land i.e, 13 shares each in the Khata. However, Ghulam Ali further purchased 18 shares through Mutation No, 88, dated 2nd July, 1908 in the same Khata, hence he had become owner in said Khata of 13 + 18 = 31 shares while the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants namely Sawan remained owner to the extent of 13 shares only. These entries had been duly maintained in Exh. P.2 Jamabandi for the years 1912-13 as well as for the year 1915-16 as Exh. P.3.
However, according to the plaintiffs, an erroneous entry was made in the Jamabandi of 1923-24 Exh. P.1 wherein the said Sawan and Ghulam Ali, both brothers, were shown to be owners of 44 shares jointly. The plaintiffs further averred that .They have been in possession of the Khata to the extent of 31 shares throughout; hence challenged the entries of shares in the Jamabandi; hence they filed a suit for declaration of their title and for correction of entries in the Revenue Record.
Petitioners/defendants contested the suit. The trial Court framed issues in view of the pleadings of the parties. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. After hearing both the sides and having gone through the evidence learned trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of respondents plaintiffs vide judgment, dated 1st July, 1997. Feeling dissatisfied from the judgment decree of the trial Court petitioners/defendants appealed before Additional District Judge, Sadiqabad, who vide judgment, dated 19th March, 1999 dismissed the same. Being aggrieved from the judgments of trial and Appellate Courts petitioners/defendants filed civil revision before Lahore High Court, Lahore, which too met the same fate by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel argued that from 1923-24 to onward predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Sawan was shown as equal sharer with the Ghulam Ali and it is not known that under what circumstances prior to 1923-24 how Ghulam Ali was shown as having 13+ 18=31 shares, therefore, the latest entry recorded in 1923-24 being a longstanding in its nature could have been kept intact.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioners and have gone through the impugned judgment carefully. It would be appropriate to reproduce hereinbelow the contents of the relevant para from the impugned judgment for the convenience:--- "The petitioners/defendants in their written statement took the plea that their predecessor namely Sawan had always been owner in equal share with Ghulam Ali predecessor of the plaintiffs byway of inheritance, thus entries in the Record of Rights in the year 1923-24 Exh. P.4 are in accordance with their shares by way of inheritance. The stand of the petitioners/defendants is contrary to the documentary evidence i.e, Exit. D.3. Copy of the Jamabandi produced by the petitioner/defendants pertains to the year 1904-05, Jamabandi 1907-8 Exh. D.4 which shows that the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners/defendants namely Sawan was owner to the extent of 13 shares, likewise the predecessor-in interest of Ghulam Ali was also owner of 13 shares in the Khata. The case of the plaintiff/respondents has been proved by the documentary evidence as Exh. P.22 Mutation No, 88 which reveals that the plaintiff/respondents predecessor namely Ghulam Ali had obtained 18 shares in the suit Khata exclusively, therefore, he had been recorded as owner of 31 shares in the subsequent Jamabandi of the year 1912-13 Exh. P.2 and Jamabandi for the year 1915-16 Exh. P.3, while thereafter in the Jamabandi for the year 1923-24 Sawan and Ghulam All had been shown to be owners of 44 shares without detail of individual shares. Hence plaintiffs have fully proved their case through documentary evidence."
5. A perusal of above para indicated that the learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore had taken into consideration all documentary evidence and had formed opinion that as far as Ghulam Ali is concerned, he is entitled to 13 + 18 = 31 shares . Whereas Sawan is concerned he was entitled only to the extent of 13 shares as per the Revenue Record. Because these findings of facts are based on documentary evidence, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.
Thus for the foregoing reasons, we see no force in this petition. As such the same is dismissed and leave declined.