MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.--- A suit for the declaration and possession filed by the respondent against the appellants, has been decreed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree, dated 2- 4-2003; the appellants' first appeal has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 9-2- 2004.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 21-6-2000, the respondent filed a suit for the declaration and the possession challenging the two sales-deeds bearing Nos.4396 and 4397, both dated 1-12-1999, made by the appellants Nos.3 to 12, in favour of appellant No.1, through their attorney Dr. Muhammad Khalid Malik, the appellant No.2, whereby the land measuring 12 Marlas in total, in the shape of 6 Marlas each has been sold. It is the case of the plaintiff that 36 Marlas of land was owned by Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din, his father, who died and the suit-land was devolved upon him as also his other two brothers namely Sardar Mohy-ud-Din alias Asmat Ali and Shaukat Ali in equal 1/3rd share, therefore, in order to seek the partition of the suit-land, the respondent/plaintiff brought a suit on 27-3-1988, which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, on account of a compromise on 9-5-1991, the compromise deed and the plan of the suit property are Exh.P.15 and Exh.P.16, respectively. It is the respondent's plot, which has fallen to their shares, was sold by the some of the L.Rs. Of Shaukat Ali, through sale-deeds Exh.P.4 and Exh.P.5. But again they through the impugned sale-deeds have sold that plot when came to the share of the respondent through their attorney namely Dr. Muhammad Khalid Malik, appellant No.2, in favour of appellant No.1, vide impugned sale-deeds; the appellants Nos.3 to 12 took up the defence that they have only sold their own plot through their attorney appellant No.2; the appellant/defendant No.1 also set out the defence of being the bona fide purchaser of the plot, without notice; issues were framed; parties were put to trial and the learned Civil Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 2-4-2003 allowed the suit; the appeal of the appellants as mentioned above, has also failed. There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below that the suit plot is the one, which had fallen to share of the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of the compromise decree in the partition proceedings.
3. The case of the appellants Nos.3 to 12, that they never have sold their plot of 12 Marlas out of 36 Marlas of the land in favour of Rizwan Asghar; Imran Asghar and Zubair Akhtar through their attorney namely Bashir Ahmed vide sale-deed, dated 12-12-1993 Exh.P.4 and Exh.P.5, as it was not the same land, has been disbelieved by the Courts below, and I share the same view that such sales are in fact regarding the share, which formed part of 36 Marlas and was not any other separate property as has been averred by the appellants; therefore, when appellants Nos.3 to 12, have already sold their plot, how could they sell the plot devolving to the share of the plaintiff on account of the compromise decree in the partition proceedings; moreover, when the said appellants had no title to the suit plot, no valid plea of the bona fide purchase on account of such sale could be claimed by appellant No.1.