This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision No. 167 of 1976 as well as Civil Revision No. 42 of 1977 as the two are interconnected.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision peti--tions are that Mst. Imtiaz Begum a childless widow of Nawab Sham--shad Ali Khan filed a claim on behalf of her late husband who died after migration to Pakistan and her claim of 2701 P.
1. Units was accepted. Mst. Imtiaz Begum, the widow of Shamshad Ali Khan was to inherit 1/4th of the Estate and another 1/4th was, to go to Shah Jahan Begum, a sister of late Shamshad Ali Khan. Allotment of 94 kanals was made against these units on 16-9-1960 in Chak No. 44 N. B. Sargodha. This order was, however, set aside on 14-11- 1980 by the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on an appeal by one Ghazanfar and the case was remanded to the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner. The same land was, however, again allotted to the two ladies on 9-10-1965 by the order of the Chairman Allotment Committee, Mst. Imtiaz Bagum went in appeal against the order dated 9-10-1965 and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands). Sargodha, allowed the appeal on 5-9-1968 and specified Khasra numbers to the tune of 69 kanals and 8 marlas were allotted to Mst. Imtiaz Begum and 25 kanals equivalent to 240 P. I. Units were allotted through specified Khasra numbers to Mst. Shah Jahan Begum. The .Present litigation is based on an agreement of sale dated 17-10-1961 executed by said Mst. Shah Jahan Begum in favour of the present petitioner to the effect that after her rights ace established in the claim moved by Mst. Imtiaz Begum she will transfer her rights in favour of the present petitioner. A general power-of-attorney was executed the same day in favour of Rao Rafique Ahmad, respondent No. 11 by Mst. Shah Jahan Begum, in pursuance of the arrangement of sale and the general power, of-attorney a mutation of sale No. 1077 was entered on 6-3-1964 at the instance of Rao Rafique Ahmad, the general attorney and was attested in favour of the present petitioner on 15-5-1964. Mst. Shah Jahan Begum had, however, given a public notice in a newspaper in 1963 cancelling the general power of attorney in favour of Rao Rafique Ahmad followed by a formal Abdalnama in 19655. Since the petitioner claimed rights of the land in pursuance of the agreement of the sale Mst. Shah Jahan Begum filed a suit in a civil Court of Sargodha seeking a declaration that she was the owner in possession: of the land in dispute and that the agreement of sale of units and the general power-of-attorney, - etc. Were illegal, void and liable to be cancelled. The trial Court framed as many as 17 issues. All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff except that the Court did not agree that the agreement of sale was based on fraud and misrepresentation. The suit was, then, decreed on the ground that the agreement of sale was ineffective in any case.-as it was in violation of para. 14 of the Settlement Scheme and also for the reason that no payment had been made under the agreement within the given time. The decision was maintained in appeal and the, present revision petition has been moved in consequence thereof. The connected Revision Petition No. 45 of 1976 is an offshoot of these proceedings. The petitioner had also filed a suit against the respondents for specific performance basing their claim on the agreement of 17-10-1961 but the suit was dismissed as the agreement was held to be of no legal effect in the suit filed by Mst. Shah Jahan Begum. The fate of the two revision petitions fringes on the effectiveness of the agreement and for that rea--son the two revision petitions are being taken up together.
3. Para. 14, Part II as the Settlement Scheme creates a prohibition against the transfer of rights by the allottees in case a litigation is pending in the present case the allotment of 16-9-1960 in favour of the allottees had been set aside on 14-I1-1960 and the case was pending on remand before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner -and was concluded only in 1965 with a fresh allotment in favour of the two ladies. The agreement of 17-10-1961 was, therefore, concluded at a time when not only was litiga--tion pending regarding the allotment but also there was no allotment subsisting in favour of Mst. Shah Jahan Begum thus making her an allottee in the terms of para. 14 of the Settlement Scheme. The language of the agree--ment itself is to the effect that it was a transaction only of units and meant to apply to a share of the land which may come to Mst. Shah Jahan Begum through a claim of Mst. Imtiaz- Begum. The agreement was, therefore, defective both for reason of pending litigation and for the reason that Mst. Shah Jahan Begum was not the allottee at that time. _
4. Mutation No. 1077 was entered on 6-3-1964 and sanctioned on 15-5-1964. It is interesting however, to observe that on that date no allotment stood in favour of the allottees regarding which a mutation of sale has taken place. As stated above the allotment dated 16-9-1960 was set aside on 14-11-1960. The same land was no doubt again allotted to the allottees in 1965 but in 1964 when Mutation No. 1077 was entered and sanctioned there was no allotment in favour of the ladies. It may also be noticed that in 1964 Rao Rafique Ahmed did :lot have any authority to enter into the transaction on behalf of Mst. Shah Jahan Begum as she had cancelled the authority through public notice in 1963. The Mutation No. 1077, therefore, was not lawful sanctioned. It is these findings that have been questioned in the present revision petition. I am afraid there is no justification to question them but that is still more important is that the findings could not in any case be questioned within the scope of provision of section 115 of the C. P. C. The revisional Jurisdiction is confined to question of Jurisdiction and to any material irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction. In the present case it is no body's case that the civil Court did not have any jurisdiction or has exercised any jurisdiction illegally. No material irregularity which may vitiate the proceedings has been pointed out either. The concurrent findings of the two Courts below therefore were not open to question in any case under section 115 of the C. P. C.
5. In view of the above considerations. I find no force in these revision petitions. They are both dismissed with costs-