JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--- Shahbaz Hussain Shah, appellant/defendant impugns the appellate decree dated 4 1.1990, whereby the decree of the learned Trial Court dated .27.1.1988 was set aside and the suit filed by Nazir Ahmad, respondent/plaintiff (now represented by his L.Rs.) was decreed.
2 f The facts of the case have been elaborately set out in the appellate judgment and need not be reproduced in extenso.
3. The respondent/plaintiff produced as many as ten witnesses to prove the purchase of the suit land. These witnesses testified as to Mutation No. 7 (Ex.P.2) in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.
Although the said mutation subsequently was not sanctioned, the proceedings of the public assembly on 25.8.1964 show the acknowledgement of sale made by the vendor, Pirzada Ahmad Yar Khan (respondent No. 2). Secondly the agreement (Ex.P.1) in respect of the sale in favour of the respondent/plaintiff was also proved through the marginal witness. Since the original agreement was misplaced, the respondent/plaintiff produced witnesses including the record-keeper of the Deputy Commissioner's Office and the scribe to prove that the agreement was executed by Pirzada Ahmad Yar Khan in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.
4. The appellant appeared as his sole witness. His entire testimony shows that he never took possession of the suit land. On the contrary, Nazir Mochi (PW.10) deposed that the respondent/plaintiff was the owner of the land and he (PW.10) had been a tenant under the resndent/plaintiff.
5. The learned Appellate Court -has considered the entire evidence on record while holding that the respondent/plaintiff had proved his case. The appraisal of the evidence by the learned Appellate Court is proper and well-reasoned. The factual determination made by the learned Appellate Court is not open to exception.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was ra bona fide purchaser having no knowledge of the prior agreement (Ex.P.1) and/or mutation (Ex.P.2). This assertion, however, does not stand scrutiny in the light of the appellant's own testimony as his sole witness and bearing in mind the extensive oral and documentary evidence produced by the respondent/plaintiff. The appellant's assertion that he was bona fide purchaser has rightly been disbelieved by the learned Appellate Court. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned appellate judgment and decree. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
R.S.A. Dismissed.