NAWAB AHMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is bonafide purchaser of the property in dispute. According to him, on 15.07.2013, Khursida executed registered sale deed of the property in favour of the petitioner on the sale consideration of Rs. 39,30,000.00.

(3.) From the perusal of Hibenama dated 21.7.2003, which is an unregistered document, prima facie it appears that there is cutting on the date of notary who has attested the alleged Hibenama. Smt. Khurshida, relying upon the factum that there is Hibenama in her favour, executed sale deed dated 15.07.2013 in favour of the petitioner. Property in dispute has been allegedly purchased on the sale consideration of Rs. 39,30,000.00 and the entire amount, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, have been paid in cash.