Law:

Section:

This petition has been filed under section 115, C.P.C. for the revision of the judgment and decree dated 10-7-1990 passed by the Additional District Judge (I), Haripur whereby he confirmed the judgment and decree of Civil Judge, Haripur dated 27-3-1988 through which the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed.   The plaintiffs had brought a suit for declaration to the effect that the defendants/respondents are joint owners alongwith them but the change brought about in the shares of parties in the suit property in the Revenue Record is illegal and void and merits to be corrected to the extent of original shares.   The facts giving rise to the present litigation are that the parties are joint owners in the suit land entered as Khasra No.1174 measuring 1 Kanal 9 Marlas in the Jamabandi (record of rights) pertaining to years 1950-51 and 1955-56. According to the record, respondent-defendant No.l enjoys 1 share, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.2 to 4 and respondent No.5 are owners of 2 equal shares while the petitioners/plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and Mst. Hussain Jan predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff No.3 are shown as owners of one share and respondents Nos.6 and 7 are shown, in equal share, having 1 share in all. The controversy arose when in the Jamabandi of 1969-70 the share of respondent No. 1 was shown as two shares instead of one share as previously shown in the original record referred to above. The present suit was brought for correction of this entry.   The defendants-respondents were summoned who appeared in the Court and contested the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner. The rival claims gave rise to as many as 7 issues on the basis of which evidence was adduced by both the parties and the same was recorded and placed on record by the learned trial Court. The suit of the plaintiff-petitioner was dismissed on 27-3-1988. The plaintiffs-petitioners preferred Civil Appeal No.57/13 of 1988 in the Court of Additional District Judge (1), Haripur but met with no better success and the same was also dismissed on 10-7-1990. Not content therewith, the plaintiffs/ petitioners have now come to this Court on the present revision…