1988 PLP 1490 (MLD)

This appeal against the appellate decree of the learned District Judge, Sargodha, dated the 17th December, 1980, affirming in appeal the judgment and decree of the. learned Civil Judge, Jauharabad, dated the 24th July, 1978, whereby the appellant's suit impugning the validity of the. order of the learned Civil Judge, Jauharabad, making the arbitration award pronouncing the ownership of the land in dispute measuring 80 kanals, bearing kilias Nos. 1 to 10 of rectangle No. 80, situate in the area of Chak No. 54/MB, Tehsil and District Khushab, to be vesting in respondents 1 and 2 and in the alternative for possession of the land was dismissed, arises out of the following circumstances. Fazal Karim, the appellant, had been granted tenancy rights of the land in question under the provisions of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. He is alleged by respondents 1 and 2 to have entered into agreement with them for the sale of the land after acquisition of its proprietary rights for Rs. 46,000 and to have received the sale price in instalments on different occasions. He executed and got registered on the 15th November, 1973, the power of attorney, Exh. D8, in favour of Wali Muhammad, respondent 3, authorising the latter to exercise all the powers which he could himself wield in dealing with the land in suit. He avers that he executed on the 5th March, 1975, the deed, Exh. P 3, cancelling the power, of attorney, Exh. D 8, and informed respondent 3 by means of a registered notice which he refused to accept when presented to him on the 13th March, 19'

15. The deed, Exh. P 3, was got registered by the appellant on the 22nd March, 1975.

2. On the 4th March, 1975, respondent 3, as attorney and on behalf of the appellant, entered into agreement with respondents 1 and 2 to refer the dispute regarding the ownership of the land to the arbitration of respondent 4, who announced the award in favour of respondents 1 and 2 the following day. An application under section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for filing the award was moved by respondents 1 and 2 on the 5th March, 1975, in the Civil Court, Jauharabad, where respondent 3 made statement on the 6th March, 1975, accepting the award and requesting for making it rule of the Court. On the 14th March, 1975, the learned Court pronounced judgment in terms of the award.

3. On the 15th April, 1975, the appellant instituted suit assailing the legality of the decree passed on the basis of the award. As already mentioned he denied having struck a bargain of sale of the land with respondents 1 and 2 or having received any purchase money from them. He disputed respondent 3's power to refer the dispute to arbitrator and maintained that before his acquisition of the proprietary rights of the land respondent 3 was not competent to transfer it to anyone.

4. The learned trial and the appellate Courts below recorded concurrent finding of fact that the appellant had entered into agreement to sell the land in dispute after he had acquired the proprietary rights thereof to respondents 1 to 3 for Rs. 46,000 and had received the sale price in cash. They found that respondent 3 as attorney of the appellant was competent to agree to have the dispute adjudicated upon by the arbitrator and further that the deed, Exh. P 3, was ineffectual to bring his power given to him through the power of attorney, Exh. D 8, to an end when he agreed to the appointment of the arbitrator to settle the dispute. They concluded that the proprietary, rights in the land in dispute had been conferred upon the appellant by the order of the Collector on the 8th March, 1975, and, therefore, alienation of the land in favour of respondents 1 and 2 finalised in consequence of the arbitration award and judgment of the Court was not invalid.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any circumstance by which it could be inferred that the arbitration award or the decree of the Court had been procured by practising fraud. The power of attorney, Exh. D 8, as noticed by the learned Court below, allowed respondent 3 to enjoy the same powers as could have been exercised by the appellant m dealing with the land in dispute and in no way it limited respondent 3's authority to have the dispute decided through arbitration. By executing Exhs. D 1 to D 6 the A appellant acknowledged the receipt of the purchase money and bound himself by the agreement to transfer the land to respondents 1 and 2 after he had acquired the proprietary rights. In these circumstances the findings of the learned Courts, below cannot be displaced. The appeal is without force and is, therefore, dismissed with costs. MA.K./3395/L Appeal dismissed.