' NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---Mst, Shakoori petitioner on 13-2-1994 filed a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief before the Civil Court at Wazirabad.
' In the plaint it was inter alia alleged that on the death of her real brother she inherited 12 Kanals of agricultural land situated in village Khoosar, Tehsil Wazirabad; that being an old and parda- observing lady she executed a general power of attorney in favour of the respondent No,6 Mst. Niaz Bibi alias Niazi who was related to her; subsequently that power of attorney was cancelled through a 'revocation deed on 26-1-1994 and the attorney was informed accordingly. However, the attorney despite revocation of power illegally transferred the said piece of land owned by her on 30-1-1994 in favour of defendants Nos.1 to 5; that in order to conceal the fraud the mutation witnessing the transfer of land in favour of defendants Nos.1 to 5 was antedated and shown to have been entered on 17-1-1994; that the statements of the parties to mutation were also ante-dated to 23-1-1994.
Therefore, the Mutation No,389 attested on 30-1-1994 was sought to be declared as void and ineffective against the rights of the petitioner.
2. The defendants including defendant No,6 in their written statement controverted the contents of the plaint whereupon the learned trial Court on 20-4-1994 framed as many as eight issues. After recording of evidence the Court by way of a judgment and decree dated 26-2-1998 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Earlier while recording findings on issues Nos.5 and 6 the.Learned trial Court expressed the view that Mst. Shakoori petitioner-plaintiff cancelled the general power of attorney on 26-1-1994 while the impugned mutation was entered subsequently. In the view of the learned trial Court after cancellation, the attorney Mst. Niaz Bibi had no right to convey the disputed land to respondent/defendants Nos.1 to 5.
3. The judgment-debtors Muhammad Ali etc. Filed an appeal against the impugned judgment and decree which came up for hearing before the learned District, Judge, Wazirabad on 25-5-1999. The learned Court disagreed with the findings recorded by the trial Court mainly for two reasons. Firstly, that the sale transaction between defendant No,6 and defendants Nos.1 to 5 completed when the sale price of Rs,350,000 was paid and a receipt was duly executed on 14-1-1994. It was observed that the fact was duly noted in Column No,12 of Roznamcha which was entered on 17-1-1994.
Further that on 23-1-1994 statements of the parties were recorded by the Revenue Officer in Jalsa- e-Aam and till that time the general power of attorney had not been revoked by the respondent Mst. Shakoori. Therefore, in the view of the learned Court, his appellants were entitled to the benefit of provisions of section 208 of the Contract Act and section 3 of the Power of Attorneys Act, 1882.
4. Through this revision petition the order of the Court of first appeal is challenged inter alia on the ground that the learned Court illegally and with material irregularity exercised its jurisdiction while accepting the appeal of respondents Nos.1 to 5. Also that the learned Court mis-construed the law and the evidence of the parties available on record. It is claimed that the petitioner duly informed the respondents especially No,6, the Revenue Officers including Halqa Patwari and the concerned Tehsildar of the factum of revocation of general attorney but they colluded with the respondents to deprive her of her holdings.
5. Heard the learned counsel for parties. I have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties as also to the documents including general power of attorney dated 25-6-1990 registered on 26- 6-1990 as well as the revocation deed dated 26-4-1994.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an independent issue on the question of notice of revocation of attorney to the Revenue Authorities having not been framed, this case needs to be remanded. However, I will not agree for two reasons. Firstly, the issue No, 6 as already framed amply covers the question if the Revenue Authorities, purchasers and the general attorney were aware of the factum of cancellation of power of attorney. Special attorney of the plaintiff while appearing as her witness claimed that he made an application in writing to the Patwari informing him of the alleged fraud. However, neither such application nor its receipt by the Patwari were ever brought on record. No other evidence was produced to support the notice of revocation to all concerned either.
7. The learned Court of first appeal rightly observed, that the sale in question was complete on the day when the power of attorney was revoked. It was further noted that not only the sale was duly reflected in Roznamacha Waqaiti on 17-1-1994 but also the statements of the parties were recorded on 23-1-1994. Thereafter the attestation of mutation by the Tehsildar concerned was a mere formality which happened on 30-1-1994. Accordingly the cancellation of power of attorney in the meanwhile on 26-1-1994 could not deprive the purchaser of their rights. In that situation the only alternate available with the principal/present petitioner was to file a suit for recovery of Rs,3,50,000 admittedly received by the attorney from the purchasers along with damages, if she could bring whom them successfully.
8. The petitioner having failed to bring any of three constituents necessary for interference under section 115 C.P.C. This revision petition shall be dismissed with no order as to costs.