Respondents, being successors-in-interest of Imam Bakhsh , on 16-6-1986 filed a suit for declaration, claiming owners of the suit house and challenging the sale, made by one Muhammad Hayat in favour of Muhammad Azeem and further sale by Muhammad Azeem to Muhammad Ramzan, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners. The petitioners contested the suit, and took up the plea that by virtue of the agreement , they had purchased the property from Muhammad Azeem, who had earlier agreed to purchase the same from Muhammad Hayat. In this behalf, it was also submitted, that the possession was delivered to them. Anyhow, issues were framed, parties were put to trial, and the learned Civil Judge, has decreed the suit, holding that the property in question, was owned by Imam Bakhsh, predecessorin-interest of the respondents; this view on appeal filed by the petitioners, has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the two Courts below, have failed to consider Exhs.D.1 to D.3, Khasra Girdawaris showing the possession of Muhammad Azeem.
3. When confronted that even if these documents are considered, would there be any reflection upon the judgments of the Courts below, qua the findings that the property in question was owned by Imam Bakhsh. Learned counsel for the petitioners, has not been able to satisfy in this behalf.
4. The other contention, that the property has been purchased by the petitioners from the Town Committee, vide sale-deed dated 20-7-1987, thus, they are the owners in possession on the basis of the sale-deed; firstly, it may be stated that the said sale is during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the principle of lis pendens would be applicable besides, the petitioners have failed to establish, if the Town Committee, was the owner of the suit property, which could be validly conveyed to the petitioners.
5. In the light of above, I do not find any merit in this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed.