' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This is an appeal from the judgment dated 2-5-1989 of the Lahore High Court, dismissing the revision petition of the appellant from the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, which affirmed the judgment of the Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin.
2. Agricultural land measuring 21 Kanals and 12 Marlas is attached to the Jamia mosque situate in village Charranwala in Tehsil Phalia. It was in the possession of the appellant as a tenant under the mosque. By a registered deed dated 16-11-1991 Allah Ditta, respondent No.2, sold this land to the appellant for a sum of Rs.40,000. On 7-12-1983 one Bahadri, acting as Mutawalli of the mosque, filed a suit for a declaration, inter alia to the effect that the sale was void, fraudulent and without any legal effect. He alleged that respondent No.2 was not competent to sell the land attached to the mosque.
3. The suit was resisted by the appellant alone. Allah Ditta filed a written statement in which he alleged that the sale was the result of a conspiracy between the appellant and one Wallayat and that he had not received any consideration for the sale. The appellant, on the other hand, alleged that the mosque was being administered by an Anjuman; that Anjuman had passed a resolution on 14-11-1981 authorising Allah Ditta, as its President, to sell away the land in the interest of the mosque. In pursuance of the said resolution Allah Ditta sold the land to him.
4. On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Judge framed a number of issues. One of the issues was as to whether the sale-deed dated 16-11-1981 in favcur of the appellant was illegal, without authority, fraudulent, void and of no legal effect. After considering the evidence of the parties the trial Court found this issue in favour of respondent No.1 and decreed the suit. Its finding in this regard was affirmed by the Additional District Judge in first appeal. The High Court declined to interfere with this finding in revisional jurisdiction.
5. Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the registered sale deed dated 16-11-1981 in favour of the appellant had been rightly set aside on a suit filed on 7-12-1983 in the circumstances of the case.
6. It is not the case of the appellant that the suit was out of limitation. However, it is contended on his behalf that the sale was perfectly valid as it had been made by the President of the Anjuman in pursuance of a resolution passed by its members. This contention raises issues of fact which stand decided against the appellant by both the subordinate Courts. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the evidence led by the parties before the trial Court. It may be mentioned that there is no clear evidence that the Anjuman if one existed at all, was incharge of the management of the mosque. It was admittedly not a registered society. There is no evidence that the Anjuman had been authorised by any one to sell the land. It is also not clear in what circumstances and by whom the Anjuman was created. No resolution of the mosque has been placed on the record. It was alleged by the appellant that the money obtained by selling the land was spent in repairing and ' reconstructing the mosque. The evidence in this regard is most unconvincing. No receipts or account relating to the construction or repairs have been placed on the record. In the circumstances, no case for interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below has been made out. This appeal is dismissed but without any order as to costs.