' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This Civil Revision is directed against the appellate judgment and decree, dated 3-7-2008 whereby appeal filed by the present petitioner against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 15-2-2007 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the lis at hand are the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for partition against the present petitioner and A the remaining respondents in respect of the property in dispute. It appears that the property in dispute was purchased jointly by the present petitioner and Umar Din, the predecessor-in-interest of the parties, in equal share. Upon the death of Umar Din, respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who are admittedly his heirs, along with others filed a suit seeking partition of the said property. The present petitioner took up the defence that during his lifetime Umar Din deceased had executed an agreement to sell in respect of his half share and received the entire consideration, therefore, his possession was protected under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. On the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, evidence was led, whereafter the trial Court seized of the matter, rejected the defence of the present petitioner and passed a preliminary decree, vide judgment dated 15-2-2007. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which failed to find favour and was dismissed, vide the impugned appellate judgment and decree dated 3-7-2008.
3. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record, appended with this petition has been perused.
4. The agreement to sell pertains to the year 1993. No suit for specific performance in respect thereof has been filed. The matter in controversy first came into light when the instant suit was filed in 2002. During the course of his cross-examination, the present petitioner conceded that the value of the property in 1993 was more than 2,00,000, yet the agreement pertains to Rs,24,000 only.
5. In the above context, the trial Court refused to rely upon the said agreement, which finding has been affirmed in appeal. Not only there is concurrent finding of fact but with the help of the learned counsel, I have gone through the agreement to sell relied upon by the petitioner. It does not show that possession in terms of the said agreement has been handed over to the present petitioner, therefore, section 53-A of the Transfer Property Act is not applicable.
6. In view of the above, the trial Court rightly passed a preliminary decree, which has been upheld in appeal. There is no material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. The learned counsel has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned judgments and decrees. This petition is without any merit and is dismissed accordingly.