1988 PLP 465 (MLD)

M.M. Jamal for Petitioners. Syed Murtaza Ali Zaidi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th September, 1987. This Civil Revision has arisen from suit filed by the respondent against the petitioners for possession of property in dispute which is a Baithak to House No.98 which was dismissed vide judgment of the trial Court dated 9‑3‑1986 and decreed by the learned lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 22‑7‑1987 on appeal filed by the respondents plaintiffs which has been impugned in this revision petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are owner of house No.98 as a whole alongwith house No.96 which is adjacent. 1t is admitted by the learned counsel at the Bar that room in dispute is in House No.98. The case of the petitioners as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they had purchased House No.98 including the room in question from vendees of Sh. Muhammad Akbar after payment of price therefore the respondent/plaintiff had no right and title to claim possession of the room in question. Record was summoned which has been received. 3. 1 have gone through the record in order to examine the correctness of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is an admitted fact that House No.98 was originally owned by the respondent Abdul Shakoor. Abdul Shakoor sold this house to his father Muhammad Akbar, through sale deed which is Exh.P5 on the record. It has been specifically stated in the said sale‑deed by Abdul Shakoor that one Baithak was not being sold and that the ownership of the said Baithak was stated to continue with the said vendor. Sh.Muhammad Akbar sold the property further to Farkhanda and Abdul Latif through sale‑deed in equal shares and Farkhanda further sold her purchased share to the present petitioners. From the above facts it is very much clear that respondent‑plaintiff who was original owner did not divest himself with the ownership in the room in dispute in the house and the said House No. 98 was sold by him excluding the said room to his father. The present petitioners are claiming title through vendee from Sh. Muhammad Akbar who himself, was not the owner of the room in dispute therefore, neither Sh. Muhammad Akbar could transfer any title in the room m dispute to Farkhanda and Latif nor they or any of them could further transfer any title and ownership in the room in dispute to the present petitioners. The present petitioners should have been vigilant enough to check up the genuineness of ownership rights of Sh. Muhammad Akbar and Farkhanda and Abdul Latif in view of the fact that the sale from respondent Abdul Shakoor to Sh. Muhammad Akbar has been effected through registered sale‑deed Exh. P.5. It was very easy for the petitioners to have inspected the documents. The respondent Abdul Shakoor was rightly granted decree by the earned lower Appellate Court on the basis of evidence on the record and the learned counsel for the petitioners was not able to persuade me that impugned judgment and decree was in any manner illegal or improper. The lower Appellate Court has not been shown to have either misread the record or misconstrued it or that any evidence was kept out of consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioners' argument that he was bona fide purchaser for value without notice from vendee of Sh. Muhammad Akbar who did not disclose the defect in his title has no force inasmuch, as has been held above it was for the petitioners to have satisfied themselves after inspection of the relevant documents about the soundness of title of his vendor and the vendor of Farkhanda. The lower I Appellate Court has not acted in these circumstances with material irregularity or illegality calling for interference in the impugned judgment in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revision petition is without any force which is hereby dismissed in limine. H.B.T./I‑73/L Petition dismissed.