2010 PLP 549 (CLC)

CH. NAEEMMASOOD, J.

This petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-5-2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chobara whereby the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed and further concurred by the learned District Judge Layyah vide his judgment and decree dated 18-2-2006.

2. The facts in precise of the case are that Din Muhammad respondent No.1, filed a declaratory suit to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute and the petitioners/defendants have got no concern whatsoever with the same. He also challenged the vires of power of attorney on his behalf in favour of the petitioner No.1/ defendant Ghulam Shabbir, registered on 13-9-1999 and further sale-deed dated 29-5-1999 on the ground of being incorrect and based on fraud and. forgery. The suit, was contested by the petitioners and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(1) Whether the general power of attorney Deed No.30 on behalf of plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.1 dated 13-2-1999 is forged, illegal, void, fraudulent and result of impersonation and the Sale-deed No.179 dated 29-5-1999 on the basis of impugned general power of attorney deed is forged, fictitious and ineffective against the right of the plaintiff? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action? OPD (3) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct to file this suit? OPD (4) Whether the form of the suit is incorrect? OPD (5) Whether this suit has wrongly been valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD (6) Relief.

3. The parties led their respective evidence, and on the basis of the evidence both the lower Courts decreed the suit.

4. Learned counsel of the petitioners vehemently argued that the case is hit by non-reading and misreading of evidence. The entire case, seen in proper perspective goes a long way to establish that the alleged sale-deed dated 29-5-1999, allegedly executed by Ghulam Shabbir, posing himself to be general attorney of Ghulam Muhammad, in favour of his real brothers is liable to be set aside/cancelled being collusive, result of fraud, forgery and impersonation and as such ineffective on the rights of contesting respondents. The general power of attorney dated 13-2-1999, from the evidence on the record, is established to be a highly doubtful, therefore, the entire superstructure built upon it through the sale-deed dated 29-5-1999 falls on the ground, being without lawful foundation and basis, as per dictum laid down in Mst. Bibi Amina v. Ikram Ullah and others 1989 CLC 698, wherein it has been held as follows:

"Art. 72

Document

Genuineness of document doubtful

Effect

Where a document which had been tendered to serve as a foundation was found to be doubtful, the entire edifice built thereon would, fall to the ground."

5. Besides, no illegality or irregularity of misreading and non-reading of evidence has been demonstrated to have been occurred.

6. In sequel thereof, the revision petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./G-2/L Petition dismissed.