' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The petitioners, who are legal representatives of deceased Sultan Samundar, plaintiff (who died during the pendency of the appeal and is represented by the petitioners) have assailed the vires of judgment and decree dated 12-3-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25-6-2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chakwal, was upheld and the appeal preferred by their predecessor against the same was dismissed.
2. The facts, in brief, as emerge on perusal of the record are that predecessor of the petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of land measuring 18 Kanals 2 Marlas, fully described in the head-note of the plaint and the defendants/respondents have no right over or link with the same and that Mutation No,2179 dated 22-10-1972 purportedly executed by him through Sardar Khan as attorney is illegal, without authority, liable of cancellation and void.
He further prayed that the ,defendants be restrained from making illegal interference in his possession over the disputed land. It was contended that the plaintiff/petitioner appointed his real brother Ghulam Sarwar as attorney through power of attorney dated 30-8-1972 for sale of his land situated in Chak Umra but the sale did not take place. It is also contended that the mutation was attested on 22-10-1972 in favour of Ghulam Muhammad predecessor of the respondents in spite of the fact that no sale was made by his attorney as the mutation does not bear the signatures of either of them and as such the same is based on fraud and misrepresentation so is liable of cancellation. It is urged that even if the execution of power of attorney is established, the disputed sale would be void as the power of attorney was in respect of land situated in Chak Umra and not in Chak Naurang. The petitioner/plaintiff is resident of Chak No,MR-90, Multan and obtained knowledge about the sale only few days prior to the institution of the suit. With these averments, a decree as mentioned above was prayed for.
3. The defendants/respondents contested the suit. It was contended that the suit was barred by time; that the mutation was got entered by Ghulam Sarwar, the real brother and attorney of the petitioner on 12-10-1972, who after receiving the consideration delivered the possession also and thereafter he got the mutation attested before the Tehsildar on 22-10-1972; that Sultan Sikandar, real brother of the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for possession through pre-emption regarding the disputed land and the matter remained pending up-to the august Supreme Court of Pakistan and was finally remanded on 11-12-1989 and thereafter it remained pending in the court of Senior Civil Judge so the plaintiff had full knowledge about the sale and filed the suit after 24 years of attestation of the mutation, which is barred by time; that the suit was got instituted by the brother of the petitioner/plaintiff with malice due to civil litigation already pending; that the lands falling in the revenue estates of Chak Umra and Chak Naurang are intermingled; that the petitioner and his brother sold the whole property in the year 1972; that firstly the mutation was entered on 17-8-1972 and Report No,477 was recorded on the basis of registered power of attorney dated 12-8-1972 but thereafter due to difference in the name i.e, Sultan Samundar alias Samundar Khan of the petitioner, fresh power of attorney dated 30-8-1972 was got executed and registered and on the basis of the same Mutation No,2179 dated 22-10-1972 was attested and that the contention regarding attaining knowledge in 1996 is false as the petitioner had the knowledge from the date of attestation of the mutation.
4. After framing the issues and recording the evidence, the learned trial court dismissed the suit.
The appeal filed by the petitioner also met the same fate.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the power of attorney was in respect of land situated in village Umra so the sale of the land situated in village Naurang was beyond the authority given by the petitioner to his attorney. It is urged that the sale is void on this score alone as the attorney has exceeded the limits of the authority given to him. In support of the contentions raised, reliance is placed on Muhammad Yasin and another v. Dost Muhammad through Legal Heirs and another (PLD 2002 SC 71) and Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others (2001 SCM R 1700). It is also urged that the learned trial court and learned ADJ both have erred in holding that the suit was barred by time because the mutation being without authority was void ab initio and illegal and as such no limitation is prescribed for assailing such void documents or orders; that the petitioner attained the knowledge about sale in 1996 and immediately thereafter filed the suit. It is thus urged that the suit was within time. In support of the contention raised, reliance is placed on Abdul Majeed and 6 others v. Muhammad Subhan and 2 others (1999 SCM R 1245), Aas Muhammad and others v. Chahat Khan and others (2004 SCM R 770), Darvesh Ali v. Munir Khan and others (2001 CLC 1431), Muhammad Shafi v. Mushtaque Ahmed through Legal Heirs and others 1996 SCM R 856 and Mst. Zarifan v. Mst. Rehmat (1987 SCM R 66). It is also contended that the petitioner had also moved C.M.No,1-C of 2004 seeking permission to produce copy of Fard Jamabandi, copy of Roznamcha Waqiati and Khasra Girdawari but the same has not been decided. It is contended that he be allowed to produce the same in order to prove his contention and the case be remanded. In this respect reliance is placed on Ghulam Ahmad Chaudhry v. Akbar Hussain through Legal Heirs and another (PLD 2002 SC 615). It is further urged that the concurrent findings can be interfered with if the same are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on Ghulam Muhammad and 3 others v. Ghulam Ali (2004 SCM R 1001).
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents have contended that the petitioner himself obtained the copy of the mutation, which was utilized by his brother in filing the suit for possession through pre-emption in respect of the suit land so his contention that he attained the knowledge in 1996 is false and he had the knowledge from the date of attestation of the mutation; that he kept quiet till un-favourable decision of the suit for possession through pre-emption filed by his brother and thereafter filed a false suit so the limitation would start from the date of the attestation of the mutation and the suit having been filed after 24 years of attestation of the mutation, which was carried out in the register of rights prepared after every four years was hopelessly barred by time. In support of the contentions raised, reliance is placed on Muhammad Amir and others v. Mst. Beevi and others (2007 SCM R 614), Begum Syeda Azra Masood v. Begum Noshaba Moeen and others (2007 SCM R 914), Abdul Rashid v. Director-General, Post Offices, Islamabad and others (2009 SCM R 1435), Muhammad Islam v. Inspector-General of Police, Islamabad and others (2011 SCM R 8), Muhammad Bibi v. Province of Punjab through Collector, Gujranwala and others (2006 CLC 586) and Miss Shazia Ashraf v. Municipal Committee, Sahiwal through Administrator and another (2006 CLC 1018). It is further contended that admittedly the suit land has been in possession of the respondents since 1972 and as such the suit without making a prayer for possession is hit by a provision to section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on Ali Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Bashir and another (2012 SCM R 930).
7. Under Article 95 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, a presumption about execution and authentication thereof is attached to the power of attorney duly authenticated by the Notary Public or any Court, Magistrate or the Government Officer authorized in this behalf. The copy of power of attorney (Exh.P.2) shows that it was registered on 30-8-1972 and the petitioner had authorized his brother Ghulam Sarwar to act his attorney on his behalf. The record reveals that prior to the presentation of this power of attorney, another power of attorney was executed and registered on 10-8-1972 as is clear from copy of the mutation (Exh.D.2). The contention of the respondents was that the mutation could not be attested due to difference in the name i.e, Sultan Samundar alias Samundar Khan of the petitioner given in the power of attorney and the documents. This contention is not denied and no contrary suggestion was given to one of defendants/respondents, who appeared as DW-1. The said power of attorney has been withheld. From 1972 to 1996, the petitioner did not disown the acts of his attorney and kept quiet for a period of almost 2 1/2 decades. He has admitted in the cross-examination that he obtained the Fard from the Patwari on the basis of which the suit for possession through pre-emption was filed by his brother although he subsequently stated that he did not remember this fact but could not deny it. This would show that he had the knowledge about the sale from the first day. The learned ADJ rightly appreciated this aspect of the matter and appraised the evidence in this regard in its true perspective. The petitioner has withheld the first power of attorney and after failure of his brother in the pre-emption suit, opted to file this suit. Even if there was any mistake as to place, where the land was situated by keeping silent for a period of more than 24 years, he had impliedly ratified the acts of his attorney within the meanings of section 197 of the Contract Act, 1872. He, therefore, after almost 1/4th of the century could have not been allowed to say that the sale was made without his express authority.
The mutation was not void for the reasons stated above. The other contention that it was void as the attorney himself had not signed it is also without force as the signatures of the attorney were not required on the mutation under section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. In this respect, reliance is placed on Umar Hayat and another v. Madhu Lal Hussain and others (2006 SCM R 1064).
The entries of mutations were carried out in periodical records and were duly reflected in the register of rights so the limitation would start from the date of its attestation so the suit filed by him was hopelessly barred by. Time. Admittedly he had alienated the total land owned by him. He was no more a co-sharer so the contention that the limitation would not run against him is also incorrect. In this respect, reliance is placed Muhammad Amir and others v. Mst. Beevi and others (2007 SCM R 614), Begum Syeda Azra Masood v. Begum Noshaba Moeen and others (2007 SCM R 914), Abdul Rashid v. Director-General, Post Offices, Islamabad and others (2009 SCM R 1435), Muhammad Islam v. Inspector-General of Police, Islamabad and others (2011 SCM R 8), Muhammad Bibi v. Province of Punjab through Collector, Gujranwala and others (2006 CLC 586) and Miss Shazia Ashraf v. Municipal Committee, Sahiwal through Administrator and another (2006 CLC 1018). The case law cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable on the facts of the present petition. Admittedly, he had sold the total land owned by him. He had admitted before the local Commission that the land is in possession of the respondents. This fact is duly verified from the register of rights (Exh.D.9) and copies of Khasra Girdawaris. He being out of possession could have not filed the suit for declaration without a prayer for possession. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he would be deemed to be in possession as co-sharer is also without force. The suit for declaration without a prayer for possession was clearly hit by the proviso to section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The suit was not maintainable in its present form. It is correct that even concurrent findings of two courts can be set at naught in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Provided the same are result of misreading and non- reading of the evidence or found to be perverse and against the law. The findings recorded by the two courts of competent jurisdiction in the instant case are based on proper appraisal of the evidence and correct appreciation of the questions of law involved in the matter so no interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Is called for. The contention that the petitioner be allowed to produce the additional evidence and the matter be remanded cannot be acceded to as no reason for non-production of the same at the appropriate stage has been submitted. The petitioner cannot be allowed to make up the lacunas pointed out by the court.
C.M.No,1-C of 2004 is, therefore, disallowed.
8. For the reasons supra, the civil revision is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed.