1994 PLP 1328 (CLC)

(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD (2) Whether, the suit is not properly valued for purposes of court‑fee and jurisdiction? OPD (3) Whether, the defendant is entitled to special costs under section 35‑A of C.P.C.? OPD (4) Whether, the plaintiff has got no cause of action? OPD (5) Whether, the plaintiff did not allow the defendant No. 2 to transfer his property by his power of attorney dated 12‑7‑1990 and as such Mutation No. 168 dated 4‑9‑1990 is illegal, void and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPP (6) Relief. Petitioner recorded his own statement as P.W h and also produced Muhammad Akram P.W.2. In addition, copy of Mutation No. 168 Exh. P‑1; copy of general power of attorney Exh.P‑2 and copy of revocation deed Exht.P‑3 were produced and affirmative evidence was closed on behalf of the petitioner. In defence, Muhammad Junaid Anwaar a cousin and Mukhtar‑e Aam of Mst. Sobia Hameed appear in evidence as D.W.1 and closed evidence on her behalf. Ghulam Haider defendant No. 2 recorded his own statement on Oath as T).W.3 and was supported by Abdur Rashid, Deed‑Writer, Toba Tek Singh as D.W.2. Original registered power of attorney Exh. D‑1 was also placed on file of the trial Court. Upon review of the above evidence, the trial Court found against the petitioner and dismissed his suit, on 11‑3‑1993. It was held that registered general power of attorney contained an express power for sale of the land and, therefore, sale of the land in dispute in favour of Mst. Sobia Hameed was protected in law. It was further held that petitioner was not in possession of the land in dispute and the suit for declaration simpliciter filed by him was incompetent. On appeal by the petitioner, decision of the trial Court was maintained on 2‑10‑1993. Thereupon, instant civil revision was filed in this Court. It was vehemently urged that the petitioner was duped by Ghulam Haider inasmuch as though he did not give him power for sale of his land but it was manipulated by him in collusion with the writer of deed of attorney. Record did not sustain the contention. Alongwith power of sale, power to gift, exchange, Tamleek, and mortgage the land were conferred on Ghulam Haider by the petitioner. Petitioner did not deny that he gave general power of attorney to Ghulam Haider and executed the deed of attorney and got it registered also. Sub‑Registrar endorsed on Exh. D‑1 (copy Exh.P‑2) that petitioner had admitted execution of general power of attorney after having been read over and understood by him. Original of the general power of attorney was in possession. of Ghulam Haider. Petitioner never cared to get a copy of it to know its contents. He admitted in his cross‑examination that till revocation of general power of attorney, he admitted Ghulam Haider as his general attorney. Testimony of D.W.2 clearly dispelled insertion of the term "sale" in the general power of attorney as being manipulated by Ghulam Haider in collusion with him. Statement of Ghulam Haider as D.W.3 supported the inference. Even in the revocation deed Exh.P‑3 executed on 24‑9‑1990, no statement about unauthorised insertion of the word "sale" in the registered power of attorney was made by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case brought out in evidence adduced by the parties, it was difficult to hold that the term "sale" was unauthorisedly entered in the registered power of attorney by Ghulam Haider in collusion with the Deed Writer. On fair construction of record, it was clear that the petitioner, apart from giving other powers had also authorised his attorney for making sale of his land. To this extent, the findings of the lower Courts were not incorrect. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Mst. Sobia Hameed who had purchased the land in dispute through the general attorney, was in any manner privy to any alleged defect in the general power of attorney. She relied upon contents of registered general power of attorney which contained a clear power for sale of the land, and, thus purchased it for a valuable consideration. She was not shown cognizant of any alleged deception practiced by Ghulam Haider on the petitioner in taking general power of attorney from him. She was also not put to notice of any alleged defect in the registered power of attorney by the petitioner. As said above, general power of attorney was executed on 12‑7‑1990 and the sale mutation was attested on 4‑9‑1990 in revenue records. Revocation deed was executed after attestation of the sale mutation on 24‑9‑1990. Possession of the land was also transferred to the purchaser under the sale in her favour. By all standards, she was a bona fide purchaser for value without knowing of any defect in the power of the transferor. Therefore, purchase of the land by her through a general attorney was protected in law. Petitioner may have an appropriate remedy against Ghulam Haider for payment of the sale‑price received by him. At the end, it may be observed that the petitioner applied for taking of additional evidence in revision. The documents sought to be tendered in additional evidence were an application addressed by petitioner for alternate allotment of land; the reports made on his application by the Field Staff and certified copy of the registered conveyance‑deed. No reason was shown for not producing the proposed additional evidence in the lower Courts. Furthermore, the decision hinged on the power of Ghulam Haider to make a sale of the land in dispute on the strength of general power of attorney executed in his favour by the petitioner and that I have said, gave him the authority for sale. Therefore, the proposed additional evidence may not be much relevant and decisive for a satisfactory decision of the dispute. Having regard to the record, controversial points between the parties appeared to have been correctly resolved in the lower Courts. In view of the aforesaid, civil revision has little merit in it Consequently, it is dismissed in limine. Records shall be returned. H.B.T/S‑430/L Revision dismissed