' Through this revision petition, petitioners have challenged judgment and decree dated 31.10.1997, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rojhan Camp at Rajanpur, whereby appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 13.3.1996, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Rajanpur, whereby suit for declaration filed by Respondent No, 1/plaintiff was decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Plaintiff /Respondent No, 1 on 4.1.1994, filed a suit for declaration with the prayer that he was owner in possession of the suit property, measuring 20 kanals 12 marlas, fully described in the headnote of the plaint and challenged Mutation No, 6 of exchange and Mutation No, 7 of further transfer of the property in favour of Defendants No, 3 and 4.
The facts as mentioned in the plaint are that the plaintiff stated that he was owner of the suit property whereas Defendants No, 1 and 2 were recorded owners of the property measuring 19 kanals 12 marlas situated in Mauza Kotla Dad, Tehsil and District Rajanpur, on the basis of a preemption decree in their favour. Defendants No 1 and 2 were in the knowledge that litigation is pending and finally their suit of preemption filed on the basis of tenancy was decreed by the Board of Revenue in a review petition and the suit of the rival pre-emptor which was decreed by the Civil Court remained intact. On the basis of preemption decree by the Civil Court rival pre-emptor Haq Nawaz challenged the decree of pre-emption in favour of Defendants No, 1 and 2 through W.P. No, 235 of 1983, filed before this Court which was accepted on 17.1.1999 and the decree granted by the Board of Revenue in favour of Defendants No, 1 and 2 was set aside. Defendants No, 1 and 2 by misrepresentation and fraud exchanged the said property with the property of the plaintiff knowing that they are no more owners of the property through Mutation No, 6 and through Mutation No, 7 Defendants No, 1 and 2 further alienated the property received by them in exchange from the plaintiff in favour of Defendants No 3 and 4.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants No, 3 and 4 states that the petitioners are hone fide purchasers of the suit property. Through Mutation No,
7. Argues that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers for value without notice. Therefore, their rights cannot be easily ignored and the findings recorded by both the Courts below are not sustainable under the law. Argues that in accordance with Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, transaction is valid one and further bar of lis-pendens is also not applicable as no suit was pending with regard to the suit property.
4. On the other hand, counsel for Respondent No, 1/plaintiff argues that after filing the written statement Petitioners/Defendants No, 3 and 4 absented themselves from the Court and they never seriously contested the suit. Now there are concurrent findings of fait recorded by both the Courts below on the basis of evidence produced by the plaintiff which cannot be set aside while interpreting the evidence other than the interpretation adopted by the Courts below.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The factual position has been admitted by both the parties that the property given in exchange through Mutation No, 19 (Exh. P-5) measuring 19 kanals 12 marlas situated in Mauza Kotla Dad, Tehsil and District Rajanpur, to the plaintiff was subject matter of pre-emption suit which was decreed in favour of Haq Nawaz and in execution of that decree was transferred in the name of. Haq Nawaz and excluded from the ownership of the Plaintiff/Respondent No, 1, therefore, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to receive back his land which he had given to Defendants No, 1 and 2 through Mutation No, 6 in exchange. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that bar of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was not applicable as about the suit property no lis was pending at that time, I agree to this extent that on the transaction in favour of the petitioners no lis was pending with regard to the suit property, therefore, bar of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is not applicable to this case but I do not agree with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers as no evidence, oral as well as documentary, has been produced by the petitioners. Without evidence and pleadings that they are bona fide purchasers their claim cannot be accepted. If they have any grievance with their transferors, i.e, Defendants No, 1 and 2, they can lodge their claim against them for compensation. The plaintiff/ Respondent No, 1 cannot be burdened when Defendants No, 1 and 2 defrauded the plaintiff and Defendants No, 3 and 4, i.e, petitioners.
6. In my view when two parties are defrauded by third party, the party who let the third party to defraud shall suffer. In the case in hand when the plaintiff has proved his case through evidence and B there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below and Defendants No, 3 and 4/petitioners opted not to produce evidence . With regard to their bona fide purchase, therefore, they have to suffer in the instant litigation but they have full right to sue Respondents No, 2 and 3/Defendants No, 1 and 2 to make good their loss. In these circumstances while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the, CPC I have no option but to dismiss this revision petition which is against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below and this Court cannot substitute the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below by its own findings while interpreting the evidence different from the interpretation of the Courts below. Resultantly, the instant revision petition failed and stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.