MUHAMMD SAIR ALI, J.---The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction stating that Sayd Muhammad being an Islamabad oustee, was issued permit in 1970/71 entitling him to the allotment of land in District Jhang. Said Sayd Muhammad entered into an agreement to sell dated 30-6-1973 (Exh.P.5) in favour of Abdul Sattar son of Noor Muhammad stipulating payment of dues thereto by said Abdul Sattar in whose favour a general power of attorney dated 30-6-1973 (Exh.P.1) was also executed and registered by Sayd Muhammad delegating powers to obtain allotment of the land on the basis of permit to acquire proprietary rights and then to execute alienations and sales thereto. And that on the basis of said agreement to sell and power of attorney (Exh.P.1), instalments of dues were paid by Abdul Sattar. And as such sale-deed in favour of Sayd Muhammad was obtained on 2-3-1983. However on the basis of power of attorney, an oral sale was made by Abdul Sattar as general attorney of Sayd Muhammad in favour of his own son Muhammad Tariq (respondent No.6) who on 14-7-1988 got the same incorporated in Mutation No.84 (Exh.P.4). Respondent No.6 in turn sold the said land to the present petitioners on 14-7-1988 and mutated the same through Mutation No.290 (Exh. P.3).
2. Respondents Nos.1 to 5 as legal heirs of Sayd Muhammad (the allottee and transferee of the sale-deed) challenged the sale-deed in the name of their predecessorin-interest and sought rectification of the transfer orders dated 18-10-1982 and 12-3-1983 on the ground that Sayd Muhammad had died much before the sale-deed wherefor their names be substituted therein.
Permission to review the orders and the sale-deed was granted by the Board of Revenue through order dated 17-9-1992.
3. Feeling aggrieved of order dated 17-9-1992, the petitioners filed their suit claiming to be the bona fide purchasers of the suit-land for consideration without notice.
4. On contesting written statement, issues were framed by the learned trial Judge. Evidence of the petitioner plaintiffs was recorded while that of the respondents was closed. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit through judgment and decree dated 13-6-1994. Two appeals were filed. One by legal representatives of Sayd Muhammad (respondents Nos.1 to 5). The second appeal was filed by Government of the Punjab and another (respondents Nos.7 and 8). These appeals were accepted by the learned Additional District. Judge through judgment and decree dated 23-11-1996.
The judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge was set aside and the suit of the petitioners was dismissed. Hence the present civil revision.
5. On 3-7-1997, this civil revision was admitted for regular hearing in presence of the learned counsel for the respondents. Through the same order, on consensus of the learned counsel for the parties, an additional issue in the following terms was framed:-- "Whether Sayd, the original owner of the disputed property was alive at the time of execution of the sale-deed by Abdul Sattar in favour of his son Tariq through registered sale-deed dated 5-2-1984, if not, what was the exact date of his death and its effect on the above referred transaction?"
6. The matter was referred to the learned trial Court for recording of evidence and decision of the additional issue. On 8-3-2006, joint statement of the learned counsel for the parties was recorded as under:--.
(i) That pursuant to order dated 3-7-1997 the Senior Civil Judge, Jhang (Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmed) recorded evidence as well as findings dated 12-1-1998 on the additional issue framed by this Court and completed the proceedings.
(ii) As there was no order from this Court to submit the proceedings and findings so recorded, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jhang did not transmit the said proceedings to this Court to be made part of the record of the civil revision, therefore, the petitioner through C.M. No,1-C/98 sought to produce the complete record of the said proceedings including the findings of the Senior Civil Judge before this Court. This application was accepted by order dated 6-4-1998 and the proceedings, evidence and findings recorded by the Senior Civil Judge were allowed to be placed on the record as Annexures J to R. The record, therefore, need not to be requisitioned as all the certified copies are available on the record of the civil revision which may be considered.
(iii) That the parties had no legal or factual objection to the modality of framing additional issue and sending the case to the learned trial Judge for recording the evidence as well as its findings on the additional issue as framed wherefor the parties jointly request that this civil revision be finally decided and adjudicated upon.
' This civil revision was thus ordered to be fixed for final arguments. The arguments have been heard and record examined.
7. As recorded in the admitting note dated 3-7-1997, the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the date of death of Sayd Muhammad (the entitled person for allotment) was vitally important for decision of the case wherefor the additional issue as above reproduced was framed.
8. Evidence of the parties was recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge Jhang on the additional issue and the same was settled and decided through judgment dated 12-1-1998. It was held that Sayd Muhammad died on 10-5-1976 or 7-5-1976. And that Sayd Muhammad was not alive at the time of transfer of the suit-land through sale-deed in favour of Sayd Muhammad, and the subsequent transfer on 5-2-1984 by Abdul Sattar i.e, the general attorney per document dated 30- 6-1973 in favour of his son Muhammad Tariq (respondent No,6).
9. Similarly in the impugned judgment dated 23-11-1996 of the learned Additional District Judge Jhang, it was observed that:--
(i) The proprietary rights of the suit-land were obtained by Abdul Sattar in the name of Sayd Muhammad after the death of Sayd Muhammad whose death was concealed from the relevant authorities by Abdul Sattar;
(ii) In view of the concealment by Abdul Sattar of the factum of death of Sayd Muhammad, the learned Member Board of Revenue observed in the impugned order (Exh.P.7) that when the original allottee had died, how could the sale-deed be made in the name of original allottee and how could the possession thereunder be delivered to Sayd Muhammad deceased or his agent;
(iii) The conduct of Abdul Sattar (general attorney) was throughout mala fide and fraudulent in obtaining the sale-deed in favour of a dead person, getting possession of the suit-land in the name of the dead person and transferring the same to his own son Muhammad Tariq;
(iv) The record and evidence proved that prior to the execution of the sale-deed and the grant of proprietary rights in the name of Sayd Muhammad, he had died. None of the P. Ws. Were able to deny the said fact. And that the fraud had been committed by Abdul Sattar and his fraudulent actions could not be validated.
(v) Under the above circumstances, the sale by Abdul Sattar in favour of his own son on the basis of purported power of attorney was void ab initio; and
(vi) That the sale by Muhammad Tariq (respondent No,6) in favour of the petitioners was also invalid and void wherefor the petitioners could not be the bona fide purchasers under the law.
10. In view of overwhelming record and evidence, the learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to dispute the fact that the original allottee i.e, Sayd Muhammad had died prior to the issuance of the orders of grant of proprietary rights and the execution of the sale-deed in the name of Sayd Muhammad. It is also an undisputed fact that Abdul Sattar obtained the orders of grant of proprietary right's and sale-deed in the name of Sayd Muhammad by concealing the fact of Sayd Muhammad's death. In view thereof, the learned Member Board of Revenue and the learned Additional District Judge validly held the orders of grant of proprietary rights and the sale- deed were invalid and void.
11. As such neither the sale in favour of Muhammad Tariq (respondent No,6) by Abdul Sattar nor the sale in favour of the petitioners by Muhammad Tariq was a valid sale. The learned Additional District Judge properly decided that the doctrine attachable to a bona fide purchaser for consideration without notice of the defect, could not be extended to an invalid and void purchase by a purported purchaser from an incompetent vendor; the sale in whose favour was fundamentally void. No rights thereunder could flow either in favour of respondent No.6 or the petitioners. The civil revision is therefore dismissed without an order as to the costs.