(1.) Plaintiff-Appellant is in regular second appeal against the dismissal of the suit in part i.e. relief of possession with respect to land measuring 64 kanals and 2 marlas has been declined by the Courts below.
(2.) Plaintiff-Appellant had filed a suit for declaration and possession claiming that impugned judgment and decree dated 15.03.1980 secured by defendant No.1 against the plaintiff is null, void and result of fraud. He further asserted that the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.3 to 12 are also consequently null and void. Both the Courts after appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent findings of fact, which has not been challenged before this Court, that the civil decree dated 15.03.1980 was result of impersonation, hence, null and void not binding on the plaintiff.
(3.) However, both the Courts have declined the relief of declaration and possession on the ground that the defendants No.3 to 12 are bona fide purchasers. In the considered opinion of this Court, the question which arises for consideration is:-