The precise facts of the case are that by filing a declaratory suit Mst. Ayesha Bibi, Respondent No, 1/plaintiff claimed-that she was an illiterate lady aged about 72 years and the suit land was inherited by her from the legacy of her father, mother and sister; that Nazar Mohammad petitioner/Defendant No, 1, who was her nephew along with his son Abdul Shakoor, Defendant No, 2 mamauvered to prepare a forged power of attorney dated 7.2.1995 with regard to the suit property and transferred the same to Defendant No, 1/petitioner through mutation dated 28,3.1995, which was liable to be cancelled while declaring the same to be fictitious and fraudulent document, Both the learned Courts below after appreciating the evidence available on file concurrently decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent. Feeling dissatisfied, the instant civil revision, has been filed by the petitioners/defendants.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. It is straightaway noticed that neither the scribe nor stamp vendor were produced by the petitioners/beneficiary to prove the valid execution of power of attorney. The Plaintiff/Respondent No, 1 is an illiterate old aged lady and at the time of recording her evidence as PW1, she was about 90 years of age and she stated that her nephew along with his son by making fictitious power of attorney had deprived the said lady from her valuable property. It reveals that at the time of execution of power of attorney neither any independent advice was available with the plaintiff/respondent nor any independent witness attested the said power of attorney being marginal witness. There is not an iota of evidence that prior to attestation of mutation by the attorney in favour of his father, the attorney take his principal into confidence. The said lapse is also sufficient to annul the disputed sale reflected in the mutation. Reliance can be placed upon the cases reported as "Jamil Akhtar and others vs. Las Baba and others" (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 494) and "Rasool Bukhsh and another vs. Muhammad Rmzan" (2007 SCM R 85). Even by exercising alleged authority, the attorney transferred the disputed property in favour of his father, which act is sufficient to annul the transfer in favour of Defendant No,
1. Reliance can be placed upon the cases reported as "Muhammad Yasin and another vs. Dost Muhammad through Legl Heirs and another"
(PLD 2002 Supreme Court 71) and "Mst Hajyani Bar Bibi through L.R vs. Mrs. Rehana Afzal Ali Khan and others" (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 794). The concurrent findings of the fact on face of record have been eminently arrived at by both the learned Courts below and they rightly decreed the suit filed by Respondent No, 1 on the valid reasons through the impugned judgments and decrees.
4. The scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction by this Court is restricted and narrower, which is only meant for correcting Co errors of facts and law, if are found to have been committed by the subordinate Courts in the discharge of their judicial functions. Safe reliance can be placed on the judgments passed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "Aurangzeb through L.Rs, and others us. Muhammad Jaffar and another" (2007 SCM R 236) and "Bashir Ahmed us. Ghulam Rasool", (2011 SCM R 762).
5. Sequel of the above discussion is that the instant revision petition being devoid of any merit and force is dismissed.