JUDGMENT CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.---The instant civil revision is directed against the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below by way of which suit for declaration with possession and cancellation of documents filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 1-3-1993. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court which also met with the same fate on 3-12-1996. Hence this civil revision.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff owned 8 kanals of agricultural land in Chak No.72/NP Tehsil and District Rahimyarkhan. The said land was acquired under notice dated 14-10-1978 by the respondents. Plaintiff was entitled to 30 percent exemption of land. Respondent No.1 confirmed two plots with a total measurement of two kanals in petitioner's name. Whereas the petitioner was further entitled 8 marlas of land including Plot No.16 Block W measuring 7 marlas situated in aforesaid Housing Scheme. That the sale of the aforesaid land/plot measuring 7 marlas by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent No.3 was without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. The said alienation is illegal and void and ineffective upon the rights of the petitioner. A prayer for possession in respect of the aforesaid land as well as for cancellation of documents i.e. Sale agreement receipt executed on 19-3-1980 and documents dated 29-12-1980 issued by the respondent No.1 and registered deed in respect of Plot No.16 aforementioned was also sought to be cancelled and in the alternate it was further prayed that the petitioner was entitled for the issuance of decree for recovery of Rs.18875 received by respondent No.4 from the respondent No.3.
3. Defendants/respondents appeared before the learned trial Court and contested the suit by tooth and nail. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 stated that the claim of the petitioner had already been satisfied by transferring the remaining 7 marlas of land in his name, therefore, he had no cause of action to file a suit against them. Respondent No.3 also contested the suit and took the plea that she is a bona fide purchaser, whereas respondent No.4 also took the plea that he was general attorney of the petitioner and he transferred the suit land to the respondent No.3 with the consent of the petitioner and he also admitted the execution of Iqrar Nama. The learned trial Court out of the divergent pleadings of the parties framed necessary issues including relief. The learned trial Court recorded the pro and contra evidence of both the parties and thereafter hearing the arguments dismissed the suit of the petitioner. Petitioner preferred an appeal which also met with the same fate.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are against law and facts and also based upon surmises and conjectures; that the petitioner has not given any authority to the respondent No.4 to alienate the plot in dispute in favour of respondent No.3; there is no evidence on file which could show that the amount for sum of Rs.18,875 was paid to the petitioner; that. The condition No.13 of the, allotment order has also not been complied with and both the courts below have also ignored this important fact of the case; The main point of learned counsel for the petitioner was that both the subordinate courts did not consider the contents of Exh.D.14 power of attorney while deciding the matter in dispute.
5. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. Vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the other side.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. The only question before this court is that whether the petitioner executed Exh.D.14 in favour of the petitioner or not? From the perusal of record it reveals that there is no denial about the execution of the said power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner. The only contention of the petitioner is that he has not given any power to the petitioner to transfer the said plot in dispute in favour of respondent No.3. But from the meticulous examination of Exh.D-14 it reflects that petitioner had given vast powers to the attorney including to sell the plot in dispute. Admittedly the attorney put his steps in the shoes of executant through the power of attorney i.e. Petitioner as he was fully authorized to alienate/dispose of the property which he did as per Exh.D.14 wherein specifically such powers were given to him. The act of the general attorney shall be presumed as the act of the executant/petitioner. The respondent No.4 have exercised the powers which were given to him by the petitioner himself, therefore, now the petitioner has A no authority to challenge the same.
8. Undisputedly, petitioner is an educated person. He is stated to be a Headmaster of High School.
Therefore, this plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted that while executing aforementioned general power of attorney he had not looked into the contents of the document. The respondent No.3 has proved herself as bona fide purchaser of the property in dispute through oral as well as documentary evidence. Further-more, there are concurrent findings of facts in the matter and the courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees took a count of every bit of evidence placed before them and were not shown to have been overlooked any part of the record from their judicious consideration. Findings of the lower courts on question of facts and law based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led in the suit were not susceptible to review to be upset or substituted in revisional jurisdiction. The findings of the courts below based on material on record would not be amenable to interfere with in revisional jurisdiction.
8. Resultantly, this revision petition having no force is dismissed with no order as to costs.