' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.-- This judgment shall decide Civil Revisions Nos.466 and 467 of 2006. On 30-5- 1998 the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner. In the plaint it was stated that Ata Muhammad and Shah Muhammad were owners of the suit-land measuring 4 kanals and 18 marlas described in para. 1 of the plaint.
The said owners sold the land to the respondent through their general attorney Malik Muhammad Yousaf vide registered sale-deed dated 10-1-1998 and delivered the possession. The petitioner claims to be owner of the land. According to it, it had purchased the land through Sarfraz Ahmad Faraz, special attorney, appointed by said Malik Muhammad Yousaf, general attorney of the and said owners. It was then explained that Ata Muhammad and Shah Muhammad had appointed Malik Muhammad Yousaf as general attorney through registered power of attorney dated 24-8-1991 who appointed Sarfraz Ahmad Faraz as a special attorney.
However, he had only authorized the special attorney to operate within District of Lahore. Said Sarfraz Ahmad Faraz executed a registered sale-deed dated 19-6-1993 in favour of the petitioner, whereas he could exercise his authority only in Lahore as such the sale- deed executed by him in favour of petitioner is illegal and void. He accordingly sought declaration that the said sale-deed registered on 19-6-1993 and Mutation No. 3284 dated 13-2-1998 is illegal and void. On 22-6-1998, the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent. It was stated that through registered sale-deed dated 23-5-1993, he purchased 2 kanals and 1 maria of land and then through registered 'sale-deed dated 19-6-1993 he purchased 4 kanals and 10 marlas (total 6 kanals, 11 marlas) from the said vendors. The possession was delivered and mutations had been attested. He claimed that said Malik Muhammad Yousaf in connivance with. The respondent transferred 4 kanals and i-0 marlas of land to him through registered sale-deed dated 10-1-1998. This sale was sought to be declared illegal and void and also ineffective upon the rights of the petitioner. This suit was contested by the respondent on the same plea that had been taken in the plaint so was the case with' the petitioner in the matter of suit filed by the respondent. Both the suits were consolidated. Following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property on the basis of registered sale-deed No. 115 dated 10-1- 1998 and Sale-deed No.2998 dated 19-6-1993 and Mutations No.3284 dated 13-2-1998 in favour of defendant is false, frivolous without jurisdiction, void, inoperative against the rights of plaintiff and ineffective? OPP
(2) If issue No.l is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession as prayed for? OPP
(3) Whether the defendant is owner in possession of suit property on the basis of registered sale-deed No.2351 dated 23-5-1993 and No. 2998 dated 19-6-1993 and Mutations Nos. 3283 and 3284 dated 13-2-1998 and registered Sale-deed No. 115 dated 10-1-1998 in favour of plaintiff is against the law and fact, mala fide, ineffective and void? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action an4 locus standi to bring this suit? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct to bring this suit? OPD
(6) Whether the suit is based on mala fide intention and has been instituted to harass the defendant? OPD
(7) Whether the plaintiff has come in Court with unclean hands and defendant is entitled for special costs under section 35-A, C.P.C.?' OPD
(8) Whether the suit is bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
(9) Whether the suit is deficiently valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction, if so, and what is correct valuation? OPD
(10) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
(11) Whether the defendant has no cause of action and locus standi to bring this suit? OPP
(12) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPP
(13) Whether the suit is based on mala fide intention and has . Been instituted to harass the plaintiff as such the plaintiff is entitled for special costs? OPP (13-A) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of property in question as bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and without notice? OPP (13-B) Whether the defendant is owner in possession of disputed property and bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and without notice? OPD
(14) Relief.
' Evidence of parties was recorded' Vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 19-10-2001 the learned trial Court decreed the suit of respondent and he dismissed the suit of petitioner. First appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, who framed some additional issues and remanded the case to the learned trial Court for fresh decision. The respondent filed F.A.Os Nos.35 and 136 of 2002 in this Court, which were allowed on 25-7-2002 and the learned Court of First Appeal was directed to decide the appeals. Both the appeals were then dismissed vide judgment dated 19-10-2002. Civil Revisions Nos.2509 and 2510 of 2002 were filed by the petitioner in this Court, which were decided on 20-2-2003. Both the said judgments and decree were set aside and the case was remanded back to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura for fresh decision. After remand the learned trial Court vide judgment and -decree dated 31-7-2004 dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner to the extent of four kanals and 10 marals of suit-land and decreed the suit to the extent of 2 kanals and 1 maria and the suit filed by the respondent was decreed. First appeals filed by the petitioners were also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura on 10-11-2005.
2. The learned counsel for petitioner contends that the power of attorney Exh.P.4 has been grossly misread along with other evidence on record while passing the impugned judgments . And decrees. According to him upon a proper reading of the said document it could not at all be stated that it is confined only to Lahore. The learned counsel further contends that execution and factum of sale in favour of his client was never denied and only point taken in the plaint was that the attorney was not authorized to act beyond Lahore limits.
3. The learned counsel for respondent, on the other hand, has supported the * impugned judgment and decree.
4. I have gone through the copies of record appended with both these cases with the assistance of learned counsel for parties. Both the learned Courts below have observed that the petitioner has failed to prove the execution of power of attorney Exh.P.4 by Malik Muhammad Yousaf in favour of Sarfraz Ahmad Faraz 'and further the executiqn of the sale-deed dated 19-6-1993 by Sarfraz Ahmad Faraz in favour of the petitioner. The said findings are neither here nor there. I have already reproduced the pleadings of parties in earlier part of this judgment. The respondent in his own plaint stated that in the first instance the original owners, namely Ata Muhammad and Shah Muhammad had appointed Malik Muhammad Yousaf as their general attorney vide registered document dated 24-8-1991. Malik Muhammad Yousaf then appointed Sarfraz Ahmad Faraz as special attorney vide registered document dated 13-5-1993. As stated in the plaint Sarfraz Ahmad Faraz executed the sale-deed dated 19-6-1993 in favour of the petitioner and got it registered. Only objection raised is that Sarfraz Ahmad Faraz had no authority to execute the sale-deed and get it registered as his authority was limited only to Lahore District. (Paras 5 and 6 of the plaint are referred). Thereafter, the respondent in his written statement in the suit filed by the petitioner as well in response to para.3 of the plaint did not deny that Malik Muhammad Yousaf had appointed Sarfraz Ahmad Faraz as special attorney, who had executed the sale-deed dated 19-6-1993 in favour of petitioner. Relevant portion is reproduced as follow:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' It will thus, be seen that there was no denial of the version that Malik Muhammad Yousaf was general attorney of original owners while he appointed Sarfraz Ahmad Faraz as his special attorney and further that the said Special Attorney executed the sale-deed in favour of petitioner and got it registered on 19-6-1993. Even the authority of Malik Muhammad Yousaf to appoint special attorney has also not been questioned. The said findings of the learned Courts below are, therefore, against law rather without jurisdiction as it is settled proposition of law that facts admitted need not to be proved.
5. Coming to the main reasoning of the learned Courts below i.e. The said Special Attorney could operate only in Lahore. Exh.P.4 is the copy of said special power of attorney. Admittedly it is executed by Malik Muhammad Yousaf in favour of Sarfraz Ahmad Faraz. I deem appropriate to reproduce the contents of said documents hereunder:-- {{URDU TEXT ' Plain reading of the above document shows that the power of attorney was executed by Malik Muhammad Yousaf as general attorney of Ata Muhammad and Shah Muhammad with reference to land measuring 4 kanals and 10 marlas located in village Khariyanwala Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. The reason stated for appointing the special attorney is that because of his business he was not in a position to look after the land to alienate it. It is true that one of the powers given is to file application or affidavit or to file other proceeding in the offices located in Lahore District such as Excise and Taxation Office, LDA and Revenue Officers etc. However, the document fully authorize the Special Attorney to alienate the property and to present document for registration in the office of Sub-Registrar concerned. It, is true that a power of attorney is to be construed strictly, but even applying the said rule by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that it was confined only'to Lahore region.
There is no doubt that the purpose of executing the said document was to authorize the Special Attorney to alienate land located in Sheikhupura Tehsil and necessary powers were accordingly' conferred. The Special Attorney was authorized to sell the land, execute sale- deed and present it for registration before the concerned Sub-Registrar etc. I, therefore, do hold that the Special Attorney had authority to execute the sale- deed and present it for registration at Sheikhupura.
2. Another objection noted by learned Courts below is that the stamp of Exh.P.4 had been purchased on 25-5- 1992, but it was registered on 13-5-1993. Nothing turns on the said objection as it is an admitted fact that the document was presented for registration and was registered.
3. The learned Additional District Judge has also held the respondent to be a bone fide purchaser. The said finding is also not sustainable. It is a matter of record that all transactions regarding the disputed land as stated above have been effected by means of registered documents. Even the respondent stated to have purchased the land through registered document. In the course of cross-examination he stated without any hesitation as follow:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' I wonder as to on what basis the learned A.D.J. Has held that the respondent purchased the land after making a bona fide inquiry.
4. After having,, thus, examined the record and for the reasons stated above, I do find that the impugned judgments and decrees are liable to be interfered with under section 115, C.P.C. As the evidence on record has deliberately been misread by the learned Courts below. Both the C.Rs are allowed. Both the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside. Resultantly, the suit filed by the petitioner is decreed while the suit filed by the respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs.