1998 PLP 701 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 53‑A‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.115‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit for possession dismissed by Trial Court was decreed by Appellate Court on basis of title‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Property in question, was admittedly allotted to predecessor‑in- interest of plaintiffs and after his death mutation was sanctioned in favour of his heirs i.e. plaintiffs‑‑‑Defendant claimed to have purchased property in question not through sale‑deed but through agreement to sell‑‑‑Defendant could not prove `~" title of his vendor‑‑‑Defendant, thus, failed to prove that he had any right in such property nor could he show that he was bona fide purchaser and that as a man of ordinary prudence he had made efforts to satisfy himself about title of his vendor‑‑‑Finding of fact based on evidence produced by parties did not suffer from material irregularity/illegality so as to justify interference h)‑ High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Khan Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner. In this revision petition judgment, dated 16‑1‑1992 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Khushab whereby‑ the appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against judgment and decree, dated 7‑1‑1991 passed by learned ‑Trial Court dismissing their suit for possession, was accepted and suit decreed has been challenged by the defendant.

2. The property in dispute was owned by Muhammad Sharif Khan deceased the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents. As is evident from Exh. P‑2 which shows that the same was allotted to him under the Rehabilitation Laws and after his death a mutation was sanctioned in favour of his heirs i.e., the respondent.

3. The respondents filed a suit for the recovery of the possession of the property against the petitioner. The petitioner resisted the suit on the ground that he had purchased the same from one Muhammad Hussain through documents Exh. D‑1 and Exh. D‑

2. None of these documents is a sale‑deed whereas as frankly admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is only an agreement of sale allegedly executed by Muhammad Hussain in favour of the petitioner. The two Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner failed to prove that Muhammad Hussain was the owner of the property. According to the petitioner's claim he derived rights through agreement of sale in the property in dispute from Muhammad Hussain, therefore, it was for him to prove through cogent evidence that Muhammad Hussain had become owner of property by way of purchase or otherwise from Muhammad Sharif Khan. No such evidence was produced therefore, the learned lower Appellate Court rightly held as a fact that the petitioner tailed to prove that he had any right in the property and the finding of the learned Trial Court to the contrary were rightly held to be not sustainable.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner could claim to be a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration on the basis of documents Exhs. D‑1 and D‑2 as he in good faith purchased the property from Muhammad Hussain believing him bona fide to be the owner of the property. I am afraid, the argument has no force. In order to prove that the petitioner was bona fide purchaser, it was necessary for him to produce evidence that as a roan of ordinary prudence he made all efforts to satisfy himself about the title of Muhammad Hussain before purchasing the property and one of such steps should have been to examine the Revenue Record and he should also have made other inquiries. Even otherwise, mere agreement of sale that too from a person who was held to be not vested with any title in the property did not create any right in the petitioner muchless rights as alleged bona fide purchaser.

5. The finding of facts recorded by the learned lower Appellate Court are based on evidence produced by the parties and this finding does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality such as misreading, misconstruction or non‑reading of evidence, therefore, no case has been made out for interference under section 115, Cr.P. C' The revision petition fails which is hereby dismissed in limine. A.A./G‑60/L Revision petition dismissed.