' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J. --Respondent brought a suit for specific performance, inter alia. Against the appellant who is the subsequent purchaser of the suit property. The suit was originally dismissed by the 'learned trial court and the appeal of the respondent was also dismissed, however, in RSA, respondent has succeeded and a decree has been passed in his favour. In this appeal there are two main points involved, whether the respondent having not produced one of the marginal witnesses of the agreement to sell in question was unable to prove the same in terms of Article 17(2) read with Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and whether the appellant is a bona fide purchaser and has protection of the provisions of section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that in the written statement filed by the appellant, he has admitted the agreement to sell in question obviously in the light of the above and in view of the provision of Article 81 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the rigor and rider of the law laid down in Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and others (PLD 2011 SC 241) would not be an obstacle in the way of the respondent. As far as the question of bona fide purchase is concerned, suffice it to say that in the judgment reported as Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Lal Khatoon and others (PLD 2011 SC 296) the criteria in this regard has been set. The initial, onus, to prove that the subsequent transferee is the bona fide purchaser, is on him, the appellant in the instant case. However, in the present case it has been noted that D.W.3, father of the appellant appeared as a witness and also claimed that the entire transaction/deal was initiated through him and that he knew about the agreement to sell between the vendor and respondent No,l. In the light .Of the above, as the appellant had failed to discharge his initial onus with regard to the plea/point, resultantly, he is not even entitled to the protection of the equitable doctrine mentioned above. We do not find any merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.