2005 PLP 1315 (SCMR)

KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.

Petitioners are defendants in the suit filed by respondent No.1 and seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 2-2-2001 passed in Civil Revision No.2784 of 1989.

2. The suit was for a declaration to the effect that registered sale-deed No.6944, Bahi No.1, Jilad No.487 pages 112/119 dated 8-4-1979 is illegal and void and does not affect the rights of the plaintiff. The suit was based on the averments that the suit property w-a6 owned by Rasool Bakhsh, husband of the plaintiff; that her husband appointed defendant-respondent No.2 as attorney to manage the property vide registered document dated 4-12-1977; that her husband had cancelled the power by proclamation in a newspaper dated 24-12-1978; that a similar notice was addressed to the attorney who was defendant No.5 in the suit and is respondent No.2 herein. The plaintiff claims that after cancellation, the agent had no power to sell the property. It may be noted that principal died on 21-6-1979. The suit was contested. The petitioners were proceeded ex parte. The Court recorded the evidence of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit on the ground that the authority conferred on the attorney could only be cancelled by a registered deed. Plaintiff filed an appeal and succeeded. Against the judgment of the Appellate Court the petitioners and respondents Nos.3 and 4 filed the civil revision which, as noted above was dismissed on 2-2-2001.

3. Leave is sought on the ground that the authority of the attorney could only be cancelled by a registered deed as the same was conferred by registered deed. Reliance is placed on Mrs. Sarwat Siddique and others v. Muhammad Yousaf 1985 CLC 2831. It is also contended that the High Court wrongly concluded that the language of the registered deed did not confer the power of alienation/sale. It is urged that this was not the case of the plaintiff even in the plaint.

4. Learned counsel has failed to cite any provision of law in support of his contention. The authority relied upon is not relevant as the same deals with the question of admissibility in evidence of certified copy of the power of attorney. The High Court has correctly proceeded in the matter. It has noticed that the factum of revocation in the manner stated in the plaint has not been questioned by the petitioners. This finding of the High Court has not been challenged before us. The issue of notice of cancellation as well as the appearance of the proclamation in the newspaper is again not denied. In all fairness, therefore, the petitioners ought to have been more vigilant as the proclamation in the newspaper puts the public-at-large on guard. Learned counsel also urges that after execution of the sale-deed the attorney colluded with the plaintiff. There is nothing on record to substantiate the claim. No evidence was led by the petitioners and before us even the validity of ex parte proceedings is not questioned. In the circumstances, therefore, we are inclined to agree with the High Court that the deed stood cancelled on 18-12-1978/ 24-12-1978 and the sale made on 8-4-1979 was illegal and without authority.

5. The power of attorney is at page 45 of the paper book and after going through the same we are again in agreement with the interpretation/conclusion of the High Court that this deed authorized the Agent to manage the property and not to sell the same. We are not impressed by the submission that since there was no such plea the High Court could not have given a finding as to the extent of the power. Once the document is admitted and brought on record its contents can be read and given effect to by the Court.

6. No ground for leave is made out. The same is declined and this petition is hereby dismissed. S.A.K./R-73/S Petition dismissed.