' This suit originally was filed by Shaukat Hussain wherein he claimed the following reliefs:- ' It may be declared that the general power-of-attorney dated 15-12-1977 executed at Karachi under the forged signature of the plaintiff in favour of defendant No,1 is a forged and void document and does not confer any right title or interest on defendant No,l.
(b) A declaration that the registered sale deed dated 10-1-1978 executed by defendant No,1 acting on the basis of forged power of attorney in favour of defendant No,2 is a void document and does not affect the ownership rights of the plaintiff in respect of the land owned by him in dew Vighiamal, Tapo Hot Khan Jalbani, Tehsil Kanyaro, District Nawabshah.
(c) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, transferees and assigns from interfering with the plaintiff's rights of ownership and from getting his record of rights changed in the Revenue Department.
(d) A decree in the sum of Rs,25,000 as compensation against the defendants individually and jointly.
(e) Cost of the suit.
(f) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and . proper in the circumstances of the case."
' During the pendency of the case Shaukat Hussain died and his legal representatives have been brought on record as plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5.
' The above prayer was mane on the facts as disclosed in the plaint verified on oath by Shaukat Hussain himself during his lifetime which briefly stated are as follows:- 2(i) That the plaintiff Shaukat Hussain was a permanent resident of Karachi and was a Class II Officer in the service of Government of Pakistan and was exclusive owner of agricultural land bearing survey Nos. 16/2, 4/2, 3/9, 25, 24, 23, 4/1, 26, 18/2, 18 A/1, 17/3, 16/3, 19/2, 18/3, 320, 319, 16/1, 11, 9/245, 186, 179/3, 22, 21 B, 21 A, 5/2, 5/3, 195 A, 6/4, 8, 15/1, 27, 114, 117, 160, 163/3, 165, 179/3A, 187, 248, 252 A.B, 225, 256, 257, 318, 12, 20, 197/1, 195/1, total measuring 120 Acres, situated in deh Vighiamal, Tapo Hot Khan Jalbani, Tehsil Kandiaro District Nawabshah.
2(ii) According to the plaintiff's (Shaukat Hussain) statement on oath made in the plaint he never authorized any person nor executed any general power-of-attorney in favour of any person authorizing him to sell or otherwise dispose of the above-mentioned agricultural land or any portion thereof. Following documents in support of Shaukat Hussain's title to the abovementioned agricultural land have been produced:--
(i) Photo copy of Deh Form VI.
(ii) Photo copy of Deh Form VII.
(iii) Lease agreement executed by Shaukat Hussain on 8-1-1976 whereby agreed to grant lease to Hussain Bux and Sher Khan.
(iv) Photo copy of order dated 6-1-1982 passed by Deputy Commis sioner in pre-emption Application No,3 of 1979.
' It has further been stated in the plaint that the defendants appeared to be members of some gang of forgers and that in furtherance of their common intention to cheat, an alleged general power-of-attorney dated 15-12-1977 was forged by defendant, that the said alleged power of attorney is shown to have been signed by Shaukat Hussain Khan in Urdu and that the said alleged signature of Shaukat Hussain on it is forged signature. It is further stated on oath that the defendant No,1 got the said document purporting to be a power-of-attorney attested under a totally false identification by a Notary Public of Karachi. The plaintiff Shaukat Hussain also stated in the verified plaint that he never even saw the defendant No,1 or the persons who are shown to have allegedly identified the plaintiff (Shaukat Hussain) on the afore mentioned alleged "power-of- attorney" Shaukat Hussain Khan, categorically stated that the power-of-attorney is a forged document.
2(iii) It was further stated in the plaint by Shaukat Hussain Khan that the defendant No,1 without his knowledge and purporting to act pursuant to forge power-of-attorney sold away an area of 32 Acres 8 Ghuntas out of the above-mentioned land by a sale-deed, dated 10th January, 1978. The land alleged by transferred is described as bearing Survey Nos. 21A, B, 22, 23, 24, 25, 319, 32, 177 and 254 situated in deh Vighiamal, Tehsil Kandiaro District Nawabshah. The sale-deed was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Moro. According to the plaintiff and as would appear from a reading of the alleged general power-of-attorney, on the basis of which the sale-deed was executed and registered, the Survey Nos. 21A, B, 25, 32, 177 and 254 were not even mentioned in the said alleged power-of-attorney which purported to confer power of sale only in respect of Survey Nos. 3/9, 4/1, 4/2, 9,11, 16/1, 16/2, 16/3, 17/3, 18/1, 2, 3, 19/2, 22, 24, 26, 186, 320, 5/2, 24 and 319 and other survey Nos. situated in deh Vighiamal, Taluka Kandiaro, District Nawabshah total area 120 Acres. According to the plaint not only the alleged power-of-attorney was never executed by Shaukat Hussain Khan but the purported sale-deed, dated 10th January, 1978 could not otherwise convey Survey Nos. 21A, B, 25, 32, 177 and 254 referred to above as these were not even mentioned in the alleged power-of- attorney. The sale of these survey numbers as well as other survey numbers namely 22, 23, 24 and 319 having been made on the basis of a forged power-of-attorney conveyed no title. The plaintiff's case is that the entire land referred to above from the very beginning till today has been in actual physical possession firstly of the plaintiff Shaukat Hussain Khan and after his death with his legal heirs,
3. The plaintiffs have produced photo stat copy of the order passed on 6-1-1982 in pre-emption application No, 3 of 1979 by the Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah on 6th January, 1982. The present defendants were parties to that case. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the said pre- emption application made by the haris on the ground that the original Khatedar Shaukat Hussain Khan had challenged the registered sale-deed allegedly made in favour of the above-named defendant No,2 in the High Court on the ground that the sale was bogus. The Deputy Commissioner further observed that the Mukhtiarkar reported that the Tapedar had not issued the 'Fardi' a,,d the names of the alleged purchaser/defendant No,2 has also not been mutated.
' The plaintiff Shaukat Hussain Khan further pleaded on oath that the general power-of-Attorney dated 15-12-1977 (photo stat copy of which has been produced in this Court) is a forged document and is void, and that the sale-deed executed by the defendant No,1 in favour of defendant No,2 under the said forged power-of-attorney is also a void document and did not effect his right title and interest in the land, that the land continued to remain the property of the plaintiff/ Shaukat Hussain Khan who died during the pendency of the suit and the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5 have succeeded him as his legal representatives on his (Shaukat Hussain Khan's) demise. The plaintiff also claimed compensation in the plaint on account of alleged fraudulent act of the defendants.
4. The facts stated in the plaint on oath by Shaukat Hussain Khan are supported by affidavit ex parte proof filed by Muhammad Moazzam Khan who is attorney of plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3. The plaintiffs Nos.4 to 5 are minoRs, The affidavit is accompanied by the documents which have been referred above.
5. The defendant No,1 filed his written statement wherein he asserted that the plaintiff had executed the general power-of-attorney in his favour on 15th December, 1977 authorizing him to sell or otherwise dispose of his agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 3/9, 4/1, 4/2, 9, 11, 16/3, 17/3, 5/2, 24 and 319 and other survey numbers in deh Vighiamal, Taluka Kandiaro, district Nswabshah referred to above.
' He further pleaded that he was a close friend of plaintiff Shaukat Hussain Khan resident of the same village and that the allegations leveled against him were false. The defendant No,1 further pleaded that the land in question was sold out at a lower rate in comparison to the then market rate and as such the plaintiff with ulterior motives to extort more money was denying the execution of the general power of attorney in his favour. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff had received the consideration/sale proceeds of the suit land (32 Acres 8 Ghuntas) which was sold in exercise of the said general power-of-attorney, that he executed the sale-deed in favour of defendant No,2 and got it registered before the Sub-Registrar Moro as attorney of the plaintiff.
6-A The defendant No,2 has remained absent, though served with the summons. He did not file his written statement and was thus debarred from defending the suit. The case has, therefore, been directed to proceed ex parte against him.
6-B It may also be mentioned here that on 20th December, 1982 the Court while granting adjournment on the ground that the plaintiff's Advocate was not well directed that the plaintiffs on the next date be ready with their evidence, and be also ready to argue on the question as to whether this suit has been properly valued and proper court-fee had been paid.
6-C Today the plaintiff's Advocate along with the witness is present. The defendants have been called absent and the case has proceeded against them ex parte.
' I have already discussed the evidence produced in the suit which consists of statement made in the plaint on oath duly verified by the plaintiff/Shaukat Hussain Khan and the affidavit in ex parte proof filed by Muhammad Moazzam Khan attorney for plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 (the other plaintiffs are minors). I am satisfied on the material on record that the alleged general power-of-attorney dated 15-12-1977 was not executed by Shaukat Hussain Khan and that the same is a forged document and consequently the sale-deed dated 10th January, 1978 executed by the defendant No,1 in the purported exercise of powers under the forged power-of-attorney in favour of the defendant No,2 is also a void document and does not affect the ownership, right, title and interest of the plaintiff (Shaukat Hussain Khan) or the plaintiffs Nos.1 to 5 (who succeeded him on his demise and have been brought on record).
7. Accordingly for the reasons discussed above the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed in para. 16 (a) (b) (c) of the plaint.
8. As regards the claim for Rs,25,000 made by the plaintiff's on account of compensation on the ground of fraudulent acts committed by the defendants Nos.1 and 2 I find that no basis for such a claim has been made out in the plaint. According to the plaintiff's own case throughout, Shaukat Hussein Khan, during his lifetime and after his demise the plaintiffs Nos.1 to 5 have remained in possession of the land in dispute. In the circumstances the plaintiffs have not been able to show that they have suffered any loss and thus their claim for grant of a decree for Rs, 25,000 fails.
9. Before concluding I would like to refer to the following question raised in the order passed on 20- 12-1982.
"Whether this suit has been properly valued and proper court-fee has been paid?"
' The plaintiff for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction valued the suit:- "....at Rs,200 for declaration regarding the general power of attorney at Rs,200 for declaration regarding the registered sale-deed and at Rs,200 for permanent injunction and Rs,25,000 for compensation."
' He has paid separate court-fees on each of the reliefs claimed by him.
In my opinion since the plaintiffs case is that the general power-of-attorney as well as the sale- deed executed by defendant No,1 in favour of the defendant on basis of a forged power-of- attorney to which the plaintiff (Shaukat Hussain Khan) was not a party, and thus not binding upon him being void documents. It was not necessary for the plaintiff to have prayed for setting aside or cancellation of these documents and that it was enough for him to have prayed for declarations that the said documents were void. Reference if necessary be made to the case of Mafizuddin Khan v. Jadu Premanik, PLD 1960 Dacca 103.
In the circumstances, I hold that the suit has been properly valued and proper court-fees has been paid
10. Since the suit has partially succeeded the plaintiffs would be entitled to grant of proportionate costs.