1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 14th September, 1999, whereby R.S.A. No.87 of 1999 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' Facts briefly are that the petitioner filed declaratory suit taking exception to the sale-deed No.1429, dated 13-6-1989, in favour of respondent being collusive without consideration and sought a decree that sale-deed No.1080 executed on 23-5-1992 in his favour was correct and with consideration being bona fide purchaser. The respondent controverted the stance taken by petitioner/plaintiff. Out of the contradictory pleadings of the parties issues were framed and the evidence was recorded. The learned trial Court after scanning the entire evidence decreed the suit holding the petitioner bona fide purchaser vide judgment, dated 2-5-1996.
3. ' The respondent No.1, Mst. Perveen, filed an appeal against the order of the learned trial Judge. The learned Addition District Judge, Depalpur, through his judgment, dated 25th August, 1999, accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment rendered by the trial Court. The petitioner filed R.S.A. 87 of 1999, which has been dismissed through the impugned order. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is admitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner's sale-deed is subsequent in time. It has also been admitted and the same is also reflected from the evidence that the petitioner did not make any inquiry prior to the purchase of disputed property, whether the disputed property was encumbered in any manner or not. The petitioner totally failed to establish or record the bona fide nature of the transaction claimed by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality warranting interference in the impugned judgment. Resultantly this petition is dismissed and the leave is refused.