2008 PLP 1199 (SCMR)

TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.

Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11-10-2000 passed by Lahore High Court vide which the judgment and decree dated 26-4-1984 passed by Additional District Judge, Kasur was affirmed in terms of which the declaratory suit filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was decreed.

2. Facts in brief are that respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration against the petitioners impugning the general power of attorney purported to have been executed on 12-8-1975 in favour of Manzoor Ahmad respondent/defendant No.3 and the sale-deed dated 22-5-1976 made by the attorney on the basis of the afore-referred general power of attorney. It was alleged that the general power of attorney was fraudulent, that the respondents/plaintiffs had not authorized the said attorney to sell the land and that their thumb-impressions were obtained on a blank paper on the pretext that the paper had to be used for redemption of the respondents/plaintiffs' land. The suit was contested. Evidence was led. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 23-11-1980. The learned appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 26-4-1984, however, in appeal set aside the judgment and decreed the suit which was affirmed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court vide the impugned judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the general power of attorney had been duly proved, that the sale-deed dated 22-5-1976 was validly made against a consideration and that in absence of any evidence on record, reflecting fraud, the general power of attorney and the sale-deed made pursuant thereto could not have been declared to be product of fraud or collusion.

4. Having heard petitioners' learned counsel and having gone through the evidence on record we are of the view that the power of attorney purported to have been executed by respondents/plaintiffs Muhammad Ramzan and Nawab Bibi appears to be a dubious document. Firstly because one of the marginal witness of the said document namely P.W.3 Farzand Ali had categorically stated that the thumb-impressions against his name on the said power of attorney (Exh.P.1) were put by Khurshid respondent/defendant and that he had fraudulently got the land transferred in the name of his wife. He added that respondents/plaintiffs never sold their land. The said witness also stated that respondents/ plaintiffs had not affixed their thumb-impressions on Exh.P.1. Secondly a comparative. study of Exh.P.1 the general power of attorney and a certified copy of the same obtained from the Registrar's Office indicated that in the latter document there was no power granted to the said attorney to sell the land. Thirdly the thumb-impression of respondents/ plaintiffs are fixed on first page of Exh.P. 1 whereas on page 2 there are no thumb-impression and on page 3 there is only one thumb-impression and that is of Muhammad Ramzan respondent/defendant. Fourthly Manzoor Ahmad, the so-called general power of attorney while appearing as D.W. admitted in cross-examination that Muhammad Shafi petitioner/defendant and one of the beneficiaries of sale-deed is his real brother. Thus, it shows that the general attorney had transferred the property in the name of his real brother.

5. For what has been discussed above, the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below are in accord with the weight of evidence led. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference. No question of law of public importance has been raised either. The petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. M.H./Z-35/SC Petition dismissed.