1977 PLP 479 (SCMR)

Respondent in person. Date of hearing : 14th September 1977. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.‑The suit of the plaintiff‑petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court and the decree was affirmed on appeal rejected by the 'District Judge, His second appeal against the decree was also dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore on the 9th of July 1976. This is a petition filed by him for special leave to appeal from the judgment and decree Passed by the High Court. Admittedly the plot bearing No. B‑555 Satellite Town, Rawalpindi was allotted to the respondent by the District Allotment Committee, and he had built a house at the site. The case of the plaintiff‑petitioner in brief is that on the 13th of June 1968 he had purchased the house from the respondent through his special attorney namely Muhammad Ashraf for Rs. 13,274 and was in possession thereof ever since in his swat right as its owner. He, therefore, brought the suit, out of which this petition has arisen, against the respondent in the trial Court for a declaration to the effect that he was the owner of the house in dispute and also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from claiming to be the owner thereof and from interfering with his possession. The defendant resisted the suit. He denied that Muhammad Ashraf was his special attorney having any authority to sell the house and alleged that the transfer order in his favour, if any, was procured by the plaintiff from the District Allotment Committee as a result of fraud and forgery practised by him. The parties went to evidence on the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties framed by the trial Court. In support of his case the plaintiff‑petitioner relied on a copy (Exh. D. W. 2/1) of the special power of attorney allegedly executed by the defendant in favour of the said Muhammad Ashraf on the 3rd of January 1968. He further relied on agreement (Exhs. P. 1 and P. 3) for the sale of the house for Rs. 13,274 allegedly executed by the said Muhammad Ashraf in favour of the plaintiff on the 13th of June 196

3. All the three Courts have concurred in holding from the evidence that both these documents were forged and that the alleged sale in favour of the plaintiff was fraudulent and without authority. These findings are borne out from the evidence on the record and appear to be unexceptionable. The case of the: plaintiff‑petitioner was that he had filed the special power‑of‑attorney in original executed by the defendant in favour of Muhammad Ashraf and the agreement of sale of the house in his favour with the District Allotment Committee at the time of the mutation of the sale of the house in his name. But in this connection he was belied by D. W.2 Muhammad Ashraf, Record Keeper. of the District Allotment Committee. He also denied that the copy of the special power of attorney (D. W. 2/1) was attested by the Secretary of the Committee and the stamp on it was simply forged. Even otherwise the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the power of attorney by the defendant. According to the copy (Exh. D. W. 2/1). the scribe of the original wag one Muhammad Rafiq petition‑writer District Courts, Rawalpindi. But it was proved from the office record that there was no such petition‑writer of the name on the 3rd of January 1968 when the power‑of‑attorney was said to have been! executed. Its two marginal witnesses were Muhammad Ahmad Khan and Tariq Javed but none of them was examined in Court by the plaintiff. The so‑called agreement for the sale of the house was written on two pages, the first of which was a Photostat copy (Exh. P. 1) and the other d (Exh. P. 3) was in original on an ordinary paper containing the concluding, pact with the alleged signatures of the executant (Muhammad Ashraf) and two attesting witnesses. Evidently the two parts of the same document were also self‑contradictory in their tenor. At any rate the plaintiff failed to prove that the said Muhammad Ashraf the executant of the agreement. was a lawfully appointed attorney of the defendant and had the authority to sell the house to him. Both these documents were unregistered. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three Courts. This petition has therefore, no force and is dismissed. Petition dismissed: