MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J. --- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.06.2004 passed by the learned first Appellate Court arising out -of the suit for possession through specific performance.
2. The relevant facts in small compass are that the present appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for possession through specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell purported to be executed by the vendor Mst. Ruqaya Bibi/respondent dated 12.10.2000 for land measuring 43-K 14- M for consideration of Rs. 6,20,000/- out of which earnest money Rs. 4,00,000/- had been paid at the time of execution of this document with the promise to pay the remaining amount Rs.
2,20,000/- at the time of completion of transaction which was targeted by 15.12.2001. It is also alleged that possession of 01-K out of total land has been handed over to the appellant/plaintiff. It is averred in the plaint that the respondents No. 2 to 4 got a mutation sanctioned on the basis of oral sale about the same land on 16.05.2001 and the said respondents/defendants filed a suit for temporary injunction on 24.05.2001 against the present appellant/plaintiff, whereby the ex parte proceedings were initiated, however, ultimately it was dismissed for non-prosecution. Another fact which is also necessary, for the disposal of this /is is that another suit for declaration was filed by the vendor Mst. Ruqaya Bibi on 03.01.2002 against the present respondents/defendants No. 2 to 4; where she admitted the execution of the agreement to sell with the present appellant/plaintiff and also challenged the mutation sanctioned in favour of the respondents No. 2 to 4 on the t ground of being forged and fictitious. However, ,this suit was also withdrawn on 16.02.2002 on the basis of some compromise between the parties.
3. The written statement was independently filed by two sets of defendants/respondents and one of the major objection of the present respondents/defendants No. 2 to 4 was the plea of bona fide purchaser without notice. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and parties were allowed to lead their evidence according to their onus on issue.
4. Appellant/plaintiff produced three P.Ws. And also tendered nine documents in evidence in.
Support of his version. On the other hand, the defendants produced three D.Ws. And also tendered five documents in evidence in support of their version. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties and considering the evidence of both the parties, decreed the suit vide judgment dated 04.122003, however, judgment and decree was assailed in an appeal filed by the respondents No. 2 to 4 which was accepted on 30.06.2004 while reversing the findings on issues No. 6 & 7 and consequently, the suit of the present appellant/plaintiff was dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken on two issues and contends that the learned first Appellate Court has not considered the case in its true perspective and reversed the well- reasoned findings of the learned Trial Court without any legal justification. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the respondents have proved on record that they had no knowledge about the purported agreement to sell. Even otherwise, the appellant/plaintiff has not produced any evidence which established on record that the respondents No. 2 to 4 were aware of their agreement, hence it has been rightly observed by the learned first Appellate Court about the bona fide purchaser of the respondents No. 2 to 4.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the available record.
7. It is not denied by any party that nothing is mentioned about the purported agreement to sell in the revenue record nor any evidence has been produced about the possession of the appellant/plaintiff. It is also very astonishing that the appellant/plaintiff had paid Rs. 4,00,000/- out of total consideration of Rs. 6,20,000/- but possession had been obtained only to the extent of 01-K out of 43-K, 14-M. Even otherwise, the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove on record through any tangible evidence that he is in possession of 01-K land in terms of the purported agreement to sell.
Mst. Ruqaya Bibi, the vendor appeared and denied the execution of any agreement to sell with the appellant/plaintiff and her testimony stood the test of cross-examination from every angle. She has made the statement about the correctness of the sanctioning of mutation in favour of the respondents No. 2 to 4 with her free will and consent and categorically denied execution of any agreement to sell in favour of the appellant/plaintiff about the land in dispute.
8. So far as the finding of the learned Trial Court based on the suit filed by the vendor/Mst. Ruqaya Bibi, wherein she had challenged the validity of the mutation and admission made in the suit about the entering into an .Agreement to sell with present appellant/plaintiff is concerned, the reliance on this particular document is not safe to hold that the respondents No. 2 to 4 were aware of the agreement to sell, hence they could not be declared as bona fide purchaser without notice. I have minutely considered this aspect of the case. Although, this suit has been denied by Mst. Ruqaya Bibi/vendor about its filing, however, even if it is admitted, it does not make any difference because this document relates to a date which is 5/6 months later from the mutation sanctioned in favour of the respondents No. 2 to 4, so before the emergence of this plaint/document, the mutation had already been sanctioned in favour of the respondents/defendants No..2 to 4, so no conclusion can be drawn to declare that respondents No. 2 to 4 were not bona fide purchaser without notice.
9. Since the appellant/plaintiff has failed to make out any case calling for interference in the judgment of, the learned first Appellate Court, this Court has no hesitation to dismiss this R.S.A.
Being devoid of merit. No order as to costs . R.S.A. Dismissed.