This revision was directed against the judgment and decree dated 8-7-1984 of the learned Additional District Judge, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and consequently the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 29-9-1981 dismissing the suit was maintained.
Mst. Zubaida Khatoon petitioner-plaintiff, had filed a suit for declaration and possession in respect of land measuring 10 Kanals, 18 Marlas situated in village Sohawa Kohna, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot. This land was sold to Muhammad Irshad and Muhammad Siddique, defendants- respondents vide Mutation No. 102, dated 3-3-1974 by Sarbuland Khan, husband and general attorney of the plaintiff. Muhammad Ismail, defendant-respondent, successfully pre-emoted the said sale vide judgment and decree dated 31st January, 1976. The land having thus been obtained by Muhammad Ismail, respondent-defendant, was sought to be retrieved by filing the present suit with the assertion that Sarbuland Khan, attorney and husband of the petitioner was not authorised to sell the land as the power of attorney executed by Zubaida Khatoon, plaintiff, in favour of Sarbuland Khan was restricted to the land and house situated in Kot Daska only. Muhammad Irshad and Muhammad Siddique, the vendees were impleaded as defendants alongwith Muhammad Ismail, pre-emptor. These vendees submitted consenting written statements.
Sarbuland Khan also submitted a written statement conceding the case of his wife, the plaintiff.
Learned trial Court framed necessary issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and after recording evidence held the suit to be without merit. Issue 1-A is the crucial issue which reads "Whether the word ' 9 ' has been added in the original General Power of Attorney between the words ' Daska' and ' Tehsil Daska"iri the third line? If so, whether defendant No. 4 is liable for this addition?"
2Both the Courts below have decided this issue in favour of Muhammad Ismail, defendant, and against the petitioner-plaintiff. Learned Additional District Judge has added another reason to the effect that in the 19th line of Exh. D 1 (the disputed power of attorney) it is clearly stated that the attorney would have power to sell any land of the appellant. These words read as under: 3.I have gone through the disputed power of attorney Exh. D.
1. Even if the plea that the word ' 9 ' between the words ' Kot Daska' and ' Tehsil Daska' did not exist originally the interpretation can be drawn that this power of attorney was in respect of the land owned by the executant in addition to the house which is located in Kot Daska. Learned counsel for Mst. Zubaida Khatoon as well as for Sarbuland Khan stated that this interpretation is available. If that is so it cannot be urged with success that the land in dispute which is situated in village Sohawa Kohna of Tehsil Daska could not be sold by Sarbuland Khan under the said power of attorney. I also agree with the conclusion of the learned Courts below that the suit was filed with a view to get rid of Muhammad Ismail, pre- emptor, and to retrieve the land. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Muhammad Irshad and Muhammad Siddique, defendants-respondent, have not withdrawn the pre--emption money from the Civil Court. They could not obviously have withdrawn the amount in view of the stance that they had taken in the litigation. No other point was urged. The concurrent finding of fact cannot be set aside by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. See Kanwal Nain v. Fateh Khan (PLD 1983 SC 53).
4. For the reasons given above this petition fails and is dismissed with cost. The present suit having remained unsuccessful it will be open for Muhammad Irshad and Muhammad Siddique, defendants-respondents to receive the pre-emption money from the Civil Court concerned.