' MIAN SADIB NISAR, J.---The suit for the specific performance filed by respondent No,1 against the appellant and respondent No,2 was decreed by the learned Trial Court on 13-9-2005. The appeal of the appellant has failed on 3-2-2006.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land measuring 35 Kanals and 16 Marlas, described in the plaint, was owned by the appellant, who appointed respondent No,2 as his attorney through theregistered power of attorney, dated 11-3-1996(Exh.P. 1).Theappellant cancelled this power of attorney through "Abtaal Nama", dated 22-4-1996 (Exh.D.2). However, the said attorney through an agreement, dated 18-3-1996 (Exh.P.2), had agreed to sell the suit property in favor of respondent No, 1/plaintiff for an amount of Rs,3,25,000; had received an amount of Rs,3,00,000 as earnest money and the balance of Rs,25,000 was yet payable. As the power of attorney had been cancelled by the appellant, therefore, respondent No,1 was constrained to file the suit for the specific performance against the appellant and also respondent No,2, which was conceded by the said attorney/respondent No,2 and contested by the appellant primarily on the ground that the agreement to sell is collusive between the respondents and that the agreement was prepared after the cancellation of the power of attorney on 22-4-1996. The learned Civil Judge was pleased to frame the following issues:-- Issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell, dated 18-3-1996? OPP.
(2) Whether the impugned Iqrarnama is antedated and result of collusion in between plaintiff and defendant No,2? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD.
(4) Whether the court-fees has not been affixed? OPD.
(5) Whether the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious, hence defendants are entitled to recover special costs? OPD.
(6) Relief.
' As the onus of the main issue (issue No,2) was upon the plaintiff/respondent No,1, therefore, he commenced with the evidence and thereafter, the appellant produced this evidence, on the basis of which, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the agreement to sell is valid; there is no collusion between the respondents and that the agreement is not antedated. This too is the finding of the learned Court of appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant by relying upon some double writing on the agreement to sell states that the date i,e, 22-4-1996 has been changed to 22-5-1996 so as to bring the agreement with the period when the power of attorney was in force and had not been revoked by the appellant. I am afraid that on account of some overwriting, it cannot be assumed that the said agreement is antedated, as the same was this date. The date "22-4-1996", or "22-5-1996" is the date for the executed on 18-3-1996 and there is no interpolation or overwriting on completion of the transaction and has no nexus for antedating the agreement. The further argument that the price of Rs,3,00,000 has not been paid to the appellant rather it was never even received by respondent No,2, suffice it to say that it is a matter between the appellant and his agent; if such price has not been paid by his agent, he may seek the appropriate remedy against him. However, no case for interference in the second appeal is made out. The appeal thus, has no merits and is hereby dismissed.