1984 PLP 508 (MLD)

(2) Whether the agreement to sell, receipt for Rs.50,000 and registered Power- of-Attorney, all dated 10-1-1972, were executed by the plaintiff under misrepresentation, duress or fraud, practised by defendants No. l? It so, what is its effect? (3) Was the plaintiff served with an order of injunction passed in Suit No.84/72, restraining him for selling, mortgaging or trans ferring the suit property in any manner? If so to what effect? (4) Is the sale-deed, dated 13-3-1972 executed by defendant No.1, as attorney of the plaintiff, liable to be cancelled, annulled and ordered to be delivered? (5) What should the decree be? On the above issues the plaintiff has examined himself Exh.22 Syed Hafiz Ali Exh. 8, Muhammad Akram Exh.9 and Zubair Ahmed Exh.23. Besides the above oral evidence the plaintiff has produced documents Exhs. 7, 9/1 to 9/2, Exh.10, Exhs.11 to 15 and Exh.22/1 to 22/2. The defendants on the other hand have examined defendant No.1 husband /attorney of defendant No.2 Exh.24 and produced documents Exhs. 16 to 21, Exh.22/3 to 22/10 Exh.24/1 to 24/6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and my findings on the above issues are as follows:

ISSUE NO.1: This issue was raised by the defendants but at the time of arguments the learned counsel for the defendants did not press this issue which is accordingly dropped. ISSUE NO.2: On this issue the main contention of plaintiff is, that the agreement to sell, receipt for Rs.50,000 and the power-of-attorney dated 10-1-1972 were obtained from him by defendant No.1 by fraud and misrepresentation. In his evidence the plaintiff has alleged that in 1972 while he was constructing the building on the plot in suit he had a quarrel with one of his tenant Muhammad Zubair. At that time the son of defendant No.1 was present and he told the plaintiff that he would bring his father to get the matter settled. However, when defendant No.1 arrived and had talk with the said tenant Zubair the dispute was further aggravated and defendant No.1 took the plaintiff to the Police Station to lodge a report. In the evening of the same day the defendant No.1 took the plaintiff to Mr. Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate, and told him that Mr. Mohsin Siddiqui would fight out the litigation. Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate is alleged to have told the plaintiff to execute a power-of -attorney in favour of defendant No.1 who would get the dispute settled. The plaintiff was told that the power-of-attorney was required for fighting out the case in respect of the cabin. Same day Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate prepared the power-of- attorney and got the signature plaintiff on the same. He then asked the plaintiff to pay Rs.3,000 as his fee and plaintiff paid the same in cash. He further stated that he signed 5/6 papers at the bungalow of Mr.Mohsin Siddiqui and at the time he signed the papers Mohsin Siddiqui told him that he was signing power-of-attorney. He was not paid any money at the house of Mohsin Siddiqui or elsewhere. At that time the case between him and the said Zubair was going on in the Court and he was asked by Mohsin Siddiqui, to come to the Office of Registrar two days after signing of the above documents to sign some more documents which the plaintiff accordingly signed. He was not told by Mohsin Siddiqui or the Registrar as to what document he had to sign. That at the house of Mohsin Siddiqui when he signed the documents defendant No.2 was not present. After about 10 days of the signing of papers Mohsin Siddiqui again asked the plaintiff to sign a set of 12 papers stating that these relate to the tenants of the building in suit. He was told that through these letters the tenants are called to pay rent by the first of every month otherwise they will be ejected. Later on tenants came to the plaintiff and told him that according to the letter he has sold the building to defendant No.2 Mst. Zahoor Fatima. He then came to High Court where he met defendant No.1 and told him about the matter. The defendant No.1 took him in his car to the house of Mohsin Siddiqui, when he told Mohsin Siddiqui that he had played fraud on him. Mohsin Siddiqui thereupon abused him and put him in a room saying that that would put him right. Mohsin Siddiqui asked defendant No.1 to take the plaintiff to his house. The defendant No.1 took the plaintiff to his house in Gandhi Garden where he was confined in a room which was guarded by a man. He was kept there upto 5 p.m. The defendant No.1 again took the plaintiff to the house of Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate in the evening. While the plaintiff was so confined at the house of defendant No.1 the. plaintiff's wife lodged a report in the Police. Police came to arrest defendant No.1 but defendant No.1 took the plaintiff to the house of Mohsin Siddiqui, where he was told that his wife and children are in Police lock-up. Mohsin Siddiqui made the plaintiff sign a paper stating that the plaintiff was with him and has not been confined. Then the plaintiff accompanied Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate and defendant No.1 to the Police Station where the plaintiff found that his wife was not there. In cross-examination the plaintiff admitted execution of Exh.22/3 to 22/7 and further stated that all these documents were signed at the same time at the residence of Mohsin Siddiqui. He also admitted that he signed these documents earlier and later appeared before the Registrar after few days. He denied the suggestion that Khurshid was his Manager and stated that he was foisted upon him by defendant No.1. He also denied that Mahmood and Khurshid were with him when he signed Exh.22/3 to 22/7. He admitted that he is an income-tax assessee since 1965 and has a flourishing business at Quetta. He also admitted that he gets his returns of income-tax and wealth tax prepared through different advocates and has been attending offices of the advocates in that connection. He also admitted that his son passed Matric in 1972 and is living with him eversince. He denied the suggestion that he had agreed to sell the building to defendant No.2 as he was indebted and was being harassed by the tenants. He also denied that he had gone to the office-of Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate, alongwith defendant Khurshid and his son Mahmood and first discussion had taken place and only drafts were prepared and documents were finally drawn on 10-1-1972 on which date stamp papers were purchased and he executed all these documents in the office premises of the Registrar. He also denied having received the consideration in the office of the Registrar. He also denied that he made any statement in the Police Station that he was not abducted by Haji Muhammad Jamil and he has no quarrel with him. He denied having delivered the receipt book Exh.27/10 to Haji Muhammad Jamil on 21-5-1972. Witness Zubair Ahmad examined by plaintiff, in his evidence stated that he is a tenant of plaintiff. That he had a dispute with the plaintiff in 1972 while he was raising cabin in front of his shop. That he came to know Haji Muhammad Jamil when he came to his shop, alongwith plaintiff. He further stated that Ramzan had given him permission to raise construction on certain prescribed area. That paper was collected from him by defendant No.1, who in fact snatched the papers from the witness and ran away and after about an hour brought the Police who asked the witness not to raise any construction and the cabin was sealed by the Police. He further stated that plaintiff then took the witness to Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate for the purposes of getting the cabin unsealed. Mohsin Siddiqui allegedly demanded Rs.10,000 from the witness from resolving the dispute. The witness then moved the High Court in the matter through Talmiz Burney, Advocate. This witness also stated that he had gone to the High Court in connection with the case where he met plaintiff and there he enquired from plaintiff if he had sold the building as he had received a notice from Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate, asking him to pay rent to Muhammad Jamil (defendant No.1). Plaintiff, then told the witness that he had not sold the building. Muhammad Jamil (Defendant No.1) who had also come to the High Court took away. Ramzan with him. The witness then went and informed the Chowkidar of Ramzan about it. As against the above evidence, defendant No.1 stated that in or about January 1972, the plaintiff approached him to sell the property as it was then occupied forcibly by one Zubair: The agreement of sale was entered into for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 out of which Rs.50,000 were paid at the time of agreement and Rs.50,000 were retained for payment to the creditors of the plaintiff. The Advocate fee and stamp duty were to be paid by the plaintiff. There were 12 tenants on the ground floor, two tenants on the first floor and two on the second floor. At the time defendant No.1 entered into the agreement of sale, the entire building was let out an annual value of Rs.13,

600. Letter of attornments were issued to the tenants by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also handed over the original receipt book which is produced as Exh.22/10. Defendant No.1 also produced two copies of newspapers containing public notice, dated 15-1-1972, informing public at large about the agreement of sale, dated 10-1-1972 entered into between defendant No.2 and the plaintiff as Exhs.16 and

17. The agreement of sale according to defendant No.1 was drafted in the office of Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate on 9-1-1972 and on the following day the plaintiff purchased the stamp papers and got the same typed. The agreement was witnessed by Khurshid and Abdul Rehman, the first named witness it is claimed is the previous manager of the building who was working with the plaintiff while the other witness A.Rahim is dead now. He stated that in response to public notice published by defendant No.2, three claims were received; one from a Contractor Essa Allah Rak-ha, one from Muhammad Ali Haji Allah Rakha and a third one from Allauddin Munshi, Architect. The property was claimed to be equitably mortgaged in favour of Muhammad Ali Haji Allah Rakha for a sum of Rs.40,000 while Rs.10,000 were claimed by the Contractor Essa as his dues. The Architect Allauddin Munshi also claimed Rs.3,

000. The amount claimed by the above-named persons were in excess of the amount in the hands of the plaintiff. He stated that the power-of-attorney was brought by the plaintiff duly typed in the Office of Registrar where it was registered and stamp papers for the power-of-attorney were also purchased by the plaintiff personally. He also stated that the agreement of sale and the power-of-attorney were executed by the plaintiff of his own free-will. He stated that the plaintiff was represented before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of power-of-attorney by one Zainul Abidin, Advocate, while one Khalilur Rehman, Advocate represented defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 also stated that the plaintiff's wife had lodged a complaint with the Police against him alleging that he had wrongfully confined the plaintiff. He came to know about this complaint while he was sitting in the office of Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate, alongwith the plaintiff. This happened on 1-2-1972. As soon as the plaintiff came to know about it, he denied the allegations to the S.H.O. Artillery Maidan on telephone, and thereafter he went personally to Police Station and got the complaint dropped after having examined his wife, and, son Mahmood and after their statements were recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. by the S.D.M.Artillery Maidan. The entire proceeding concluded by the order of Magistrate, dated 24-2-1973. He stated that he came to know Zubair when the plaintiff complained to him about the unauthorised cabin constructed by him on the plaintiff's plot. He further stated that as that time he had already entered into negotiations with the plaintiff for purchase of the property, the plaintiff asked him to take appropriate steps against Zubair. He advised plaintiff to lodge a Police report against Zubair which was accordingly made on 8-1-1972. Thereafter the plaintiff's Manager lodged another report against the said Zubair on 17-1-1972. In cross-examination he stated that he knew the plaintiff from 1968-69. He denied the suggestion that after 8-1-1972 he told the plaintiff that he cannot deal with the tenant Zubair unless the plaintiff gave him power-of-attorney to deal with him. He also denied the suggestion that he advised the plaintiff to engage Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate, and that he took the plaintiff to his residence. He further stated in cross-examination that on the evening of 9-1-1972 he received a telephone call from the plaintiff informing him that as agreed Mohsin Siddiqui had prepared a draft of sale-deed and power-of-attorney which he should see at his office, and when he reached the office/ residence of Mohsin Siddiqui he found that Mohsin Siddiqui was reading out the draft to the plaintiff. On 10th the agreement of sale was executed by the parties in the premises, of the City Court and he paid Rs.50,000 to the plaintiff, He denied that on 1-2-1972 he forcibly took the plaintiff in his car from the High Court. He stated that on that day the plaintiff had gone to the High Court to enquire about the date of hearing and voluntarily accompanied him in his car to the residence of Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate. He also denied the suggestion that on that day at the residence of Mohsin Siddiqui he was forced to sign on blank paper. From the above evidence it is quite clear that allegations of very serious nature have been made against Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate and, therefore, he was entitled to defend himself against the same. The plaintiff in spite of opportunity being available to him, failed to implead Mohsin Siddiqui as a party in the suit or to call him as a witness to clarify his position and therefore, the allegations of plaintiff against him have to ignore or in any case have to consider with great caution and care. The plaintiff has admitted in his evidence execution of agreement of sale, the receipt for Rs.50,000 and the power-of-attorney in favour of defendant No.1. The burden of proving that these documents were executed by him as a result of fraud or misrepresentation or were obtained under duress was entirely on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has stated that at the time he executed these documents it was represented to hint that he was executing a power-of-attorney only which will enable defendant No.1 to pursue criminal cases against his tenant Zubair. These documents are produced in evidence as Exh.2213 to 22/50. Exh.22/3 is the agreement of sale. These documents consists of 3 pages out of which two pages are typed on stamp papers of the value of Rs.2 each and the 3rd page is on a ledger paper. The endorsement on the stamp papers shows that it was purchased by the plaintiff through one Muhammad Ali for the purposes of agreement. There are signatures of plaintiff on all the 3 pages of this document and it is witnessed by one Khurshid and A.Rahim Usman. The next documents Exh.22/4 is a receipt for Rs.50,

000. The signature of plaintiff on this document appear on revenue stamp of the value of paisas 80 and it is also attested by the same witness who attested Exh.22/3. The last document Exh.22/5 is the registered irrevocable power-of-attorney executed on stamp papers of the value of Rs.25. The stamps paper for this document was also purchased by the plaintiff and he had signed every page of this document. This document is also witnessed by Khurshid and M.Z.Abedin, Advocate, who represented the plaintiff was identified him to the Registrar. It is significant that none of these witnesses who signed there documents were called as witness. The plaintiff in cross-examination stated that he is an income-tax assessee since 1965 and had been attending the offices of various advocates, in connection with- the filing of his returns of income-tax. It is also admitted by the plaintiff that the power-of-attorney was registered two days after its preparation. According to plaintiff's own statement he was made to sign all the three documents Exh.22/3 to 22/5 at the same time. It is unbelievable that the plaintiff who is a well-established businessman and who had been attending offices of various advocates since 1965 for filing his returns of income-tax would have signed these documents without understanding them specially when it was allegedly represented to him by defendant No.1 that the documents he is signing is a simple power-of-attorney. Out of three documents, two are on stamp papers being the agreement of sale and the General Power of Attorney while the 3rd document is a receipt executed on a revenue stamps. It is surprising that the plaintiff executed all these documents simultaneously without objecting to them, while his case is that he was given to understand that he was executing only a power-of-attorney. In any case the receipt Exh.22/4 which is executed on revenue stamps could not have been understood as a power-of-attorney. Apart from it the general power-of-attorney was registered two days after the alleged execution of all these documents and, therefore, the plaintiff had ample time to consult any other person if he had any suspicion about it. The plaintiff was represented through an advocate before the Sub-Registrar Karachi, and he had another opportunity of understanding the documents if he so desired. It is an admitted position that before the Registrar only one document Exh.22/5 was presented for registration while according to plaintiff's evidence he signed on 10-1-1972 three documents Exh.22/3 to 22/5. In these circumstances, the plaintiff must have come to know on 12-1-1972 when Exh.22/5 was presented for registration that out of these three documents executed by him on 10-1-1972 only one was the power-of-attorney. The plaintiff admittedly did not take any action against the defendants even after registration of Exh.22/5 which clearly indicates that he is not telling the truth. I will now come to the incident which allegedly took place on 1-2-1972 and is narrated by the plaintiff in paragraph 4 of the plaint. It is as follows:

"

4. That thereafter when said Zubair Ahmed filed Criminal Revision, being Cr.Rev. No.10/1972 in this Hon'ble Court for quashment of the orders of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed under section 145, Cr.P.C. the defendant No.1 again induced the plaintiff to sign Vakalatnama of the said Advocate for pursuing the said matter on his behalf in the Hon'ble High Court. On 1-2-1972 when the said Cr. Revision was fixed for hearing the plaintiff went to the Hon'ble High Court to enquire about the proceedings but while the plaintiff was standing in the verandah outside the Court room, he was forcibly taken by the defendant No.1 from the verandah of this Hon'ble Court and was kept as a captive of the defendant No. l and forced to sign some papers the contents of which were neither read over nor disclosed to him. Further no copy of said documents was supplied to the plaintiff. However, in the said Cr.Rev.10/1972 orders, dated 2-3-197,2 were passed in favour of said Zubair Ahmed, and the orders of the S.D.M. were reversed, but the plaintiff was kept completely in dark about the progress in the said matter." From reading of the above statement in the plaint, it is quite clear that there were no allegations against Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate, in this regard. However, while narrating the above incident in his evidence in Court the plaintiff made the following statement:

"Later my tenants came to me and produced letters and told me that according to the same I had sold the building to defendant No.2, Zahoor Fatima. I came to High Court where I met the defendant No.1 and I told him about the matter. The defendant No.1 took me in his car to the house of Mr. Mohsin Siddiqui. I told Mr. Mohsin Siddiqui that he had played fraud on me. Thereupon, Mohsin Siddiqui abused me and put me in a room saying that, that would put me right. He asked the defendant No.1 to take me to his house. The defendant No.1 took to his house in Gandhi Garden where I was confined in a room which was guarded by a man. I was kept there upto 5.00 p.m. The defendant No.1 again took me to the house of Mr.Mohsin Siddiqui in the evening (after the tea break the witness is recalled) While I was confined as above my wife had come to know that I had been so confined at his house by the defendant No.1. She lodged a report in the police. On such complaint the police had gone to arrest the defendant No.1 to his house. When I was taken to the house of Mr. Mohsin Siddiqui, as stated earlier, he told me that my wife and children were in police lock-up. Mr. Mohsin Siddiqui made me sign a paper stating that I was with him and had not been confined. I, accompanied by Mr.Mohsin Siddiqui and the defendant No.1 went to the police station. I found that my wife was not there." The statement in Court given by the plaintiff completely contra dicts the statements made in the plaint. Apart from it the evidence of plaintiff does not inspire any confidence and appear to be completed an afterthought as would appear from the discussion which is to follow hereafter. The plaintiff's case is that he was threatened and confined illegally by Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate, and defendant No.1 on 1-2-1972 and was also made to sign several documents. It is, however, not known as to what were those documents which he was made to sign on 1-2-1972. The letters of attornment issued to tenant are filed in evidence as Exh.22/6 and 22/7 and they bear the dates of 10-1-1972, and 12-1-1972 respectively. These documents could not be those which were allegedly signed by the plaintiff on 1-2-1972, as the plaintiff according to his statement became aware of these letters of attornment before 1-2-1972 and therefore, he protested to defendant No.1 on 1-2-1972 when he met him in this Court. Even according to plaintiff witness Zubair, plaintiff was informed by him on 1-2-1972 when he met him in High Court about the letter of attornment issued to tenants intimating sale of property to defendant No.2. Therefore, the documents, which the plaintiff was allegedly made to sign on 1-2-1972 have not been produced in evidence at all. The plaintiff claims that letters of attornment were unauthorisedly issued by defendant No.1 and Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate. It is interesting, that in spite of all the high handedness and fraudulent misrepresentation alleged against Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate, in inducing the plaintiff to sign several documents in favour of defendants and of which the plaintiff became aware of before 1-2-1972 and in any case on 1-2-1972, Mohsin Siddiqui was retained by the plaintiff as his counsel in Cr.Rev. No.10/1972 filed against him by his tenant, Zubair, Exh.22/9 is the Vakalatnama, dated 1-2-1972 signed by the plaintiff in favour of Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate, which' was filed in Court on 2-2-1972 in the above case. Exh.22/8 is a counter-affidavit filed in Cr.Rev. 10/1972 on 7-2-1972 which was sworn by the plaintiff in this Court on 7-2-1972. The endorsement of the Commissioner for taking affidavit on Exh.22/8 shows that it was read over in Urdu to the plaintiff who understand the same. The following statement was made in paragraph 13 of Exh.22/8:

"That in reply to para.6 of the petition I say that I am the owner of the premises and have contracted to sell the same to Mst.Zahoor Fatima but final conveyance has not taken place." Mohsin Siddiqui Advocate continued to appear for plaintiff in Cr.Rev. 10/1972 until 2-3-1972 when it was disposed of. The plaintiff at no stage took any step to discharge Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate, as his counsel in the said case. He also did not dispute at any stage in that case the correctness of the statement made in his counter-affidavit dated 7-2-1972. If there was any truth in the allegation of plaintiff regarding fraudulent misrepresentation by Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate, and the defendants, he would not have sworn the counter-affidavit, dated 7-2-1972 and would have immediately discharge Mohsin Siddiqui as his Advocate from Cr.Rev.10/1972. I am, therefore, not prepared to believe the allegations of plaintiff that the agreement of sale-dated 10-1-1972 Receipt for Rs.50,000 dated 10-1-1972 and the Registered Power-of-Attorney, dated 10-1-1972 were executed as a result of any fraudulent misrepresentation or duress on the plaintiff. Mr.Khalilur Rehman, attempted to argue that the consideration for which the property was alleged to have been agreed to be sold by the plaintiff was highly inadequate and below the market value and, therefore, the sale should be cancelled. Firstly in such issue has been framed and secondly on examining the evidence I find no substance in the submission of the learned counsel. The learned counsel referred to the evidence of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to demonstrate that on the date of agreement of sale, the market value of then property was near about Rs.2,00,

000. This argument of the learned counsel, however, overlooks the admitted position on record that the total annual rental value of the property is Rs.13,600 only. It' is also an admitted position that before entering into .the sale agreement the plaintiff had inducted 12 tenants on the ground floor and 2 each on the 1st and 2nd floor and at the time of inducting the tenants he had taken substantial amount as advances/ deposits (although it is the case of the plaintiff that this money was received by the plaintiff as Pagri). One of the tenants in the building, Muhammad Zubair, examined by the plaintiff in the case, stated in his evidence before the Court that he had paid a sum of Rs.22,000 as Pagri to Ramzan at the time of occupation of the premises. There is no provision in the agreement of sale that the sum already received by the plaintiff from the tenants at the time of inducting them in the premises are to be paid a reimbursed to defendant No.2. In these circumstances the market value of the property is to be considered with reference to the amount agreed to be, paid under the agreement of sale plus the amount already realised by the plaintiff by way of deposit/ Pagri. Keeping in view the evidence of Zubair it is obvious that the plaintiff received more than Rs.2,00,000 by way of consideration at the time he entered into the agreement of sale. The issue is decided in the negative. ISSUE NOS. 3 AND 4: Both these issues can be conveniently disposed of together as they are interconnected. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the sale-deed dated 13-3-1972 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is liable to be cancelled and ordered to be delivered up to the plaintiff on three grounds. It is firstly contended that the sale-deed has been executed on the basis of a power-of-attorney which was obtained by the defendant No.1 under duress and by practising fraud and misrepresentation on the plaintiff. It is next contended that the sale-deed is also liable to be annulled/ cancelled as the sale has taken place after the order of injunction passed in Suit No.84/1972 restraining plaintiff from transferring or selling the property in this suit, was served on the plaintiff. Lastly, it is contended that the sale-deed is liable to be cancelled /annulled in any case as it was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 on the basis of a power-of-attorney which was cancelled on 10th March, 1972. None of the contentions have any force. In so far, the first ground urged by the learned counsel is concerned, I have already held under Issue No.2 that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the power-of-attorney was obtained by defendant No.1 as a result of fraud, misrepresentation or duress upon the plaintiff therefore, this ground fails. Regarding second contention of the learned counsel that the defendant No.1 executed the sale-deed after service of injunction order in Suit No.84/72 upon the plaintiff, this too has no substance. It is an admitted position that Suit No.84/1972 was instituted against the plaintiff by one Essa Contractor. It is not disputed that defendant No.1 was not a party to the above suit and there is n0 material on record to show that defendant No.1 was aware of the said order or was served with a copy thereof. Apart from it, the learned counsel for the plaintiff is unable to point out any law under which such a sale is rendered void. Suit No.84/1972 was a simple money suit filed against the plaintiff for recovery of a specific sum of money which has been disposed of by a compromise decree. There is nothing on record to show that the ad interim order issued by the Court in the said suit was also made absolute in the final decree. The learned counsel was unable to show that defendant No. l was restrained in any manner in any legal proceeding to act on the power-of-attorney executed by the plaintiff in his favour. I accordingly overrule this contention of learned counsel. The last contention of Mr. Khalil- ur-Reh man, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, Is that the sale-deed was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 after cancellation of power-of-attorney in his favour. In this connection the learned counsel relied on the office copy of the letter dated 10th March, 1972 (Exh.10). According to the statement made in para.7 of the plaint the above notice was returned by the postal authorities to the plaintiff on 24-3-1972 with the endorsement "refused". The plaintiff when examined in Court did not produce the original envelope containing the alleged endorsement of Postal authorities,. Apart from the fact that the power-of-attorney executed in favour of defendant No.1 was for consideration as it was executed in pursuance of an agreement of sale whereunder the property was agreed to be sold to defendant No.2 by the plaintiff after receiving the part of consideration, and therefore, it could not be legally cancelled, there is nothing on record to show that on 13th of March, 1972, when the sale-deed was executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, he was aware of the cancellation of the power-of-attorney in his favour. Under the law, the termination of authority of an agent does not, so far as the agent is concerned, takes effect before it became known to him or in so far as regard third person, before it becomes known to them. In the present case on 13th March, 1972, on the evidence as it stands, neither defendant No.1 nor defendant No.2 were aware of the alleged revocation of the power-of-attorney by the plaintiff and as such for this reason the sale-deed cannot be cancelled. I accordingly hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove issues Nos.3 and 4 and the sale-deed dated 13-3-1972, executed in favour of defendant 1 No.2 cannot be set aside. As a result of above discussion the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case I will make no order as to costs. M.Y.H. Suit dismissed.