' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition called in question the judgment dated 10-4- 2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan whereby regular second appeal filed against impugned judgment has been allowed as a consequence whereof the judgment and decree of the District Judge, dated 14-5-1990 has been set aside and the judgment and decree dated 30-3-1989 passes by Civil Judge dismissing the suit of the petitioner has been restored.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that one Qamar Zaman husband of Muzaffar Jan alias Muzaffar Khanum entered into a sale transaction in respect of suit property on behalf of his wife vide agreement dated 17-1-1979. The petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance against the attorney Qamar Zaman and his wife as well as to the subsequent vendees who have acquired the property in pursuance of the pre-emption suit which was filed by them as in the meanwhile Mst. Muzaffar Jan alias Muzaffar Khanum had sold the property. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit for specific performance on the ground that the agreement was executed by Qamar Zaman who was not holding the power of attorney in his favour. However, in appeal such findings of the trial Court were set aside by the learned District Judge. Against the appellate Court order subsequent vendee filed R.S.A. Which has been allowed vide impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel contended that as far as Qamar Zaman is concerned, he always had been acting to be attorney of Mst. Muzaffar Jan, his wife, therefore, on account of his such conduct the Court may have presumed that the agreement to sell was validly executed between the parties.
4. We have examined the contention of the learned counsel in the light of the evidence available on record as well as the findings recorded by the Civil Judge (trial Court as well as the learned High Court). Both these Courts have concluded on the basis of the material that the power of attorney was not executed validly in favour of Qamar Zaman by his wife therefore, he had no right to enter into an agreement to sell with the Amir Muhammad and others. Since the findings of fact recorded by trial Court as well as Appellate Court are based on correct appraisal of evidence and no fault has been pointed out in such findings, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. Thus, for the foregoing reasons the petition is dismissed.