1. ' SYED KHURSHEED HYDER RIZVI, J.---Appellant Ramzan Muhammad had filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of sale-deed, dated 13-3-1972, before this Court. In the plaint, he stated that he is the owner of Plot No,209, Survey Sheet A.M. Measuring 280 sq. Yards, situated at Sarmad Road, Karachi. He further stated that after demolishing the old structures he constructed a new building in 1970 through a Building Contractor. In January, 1972 a dispute arose between him and one of his tenants namely Zubair Ahmed regarding illegal and unauthorised construction in front of Shop No,1 of the said building and as a result, thereof, proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Were initiated against the said tenant. While the said dispute was going on between him and Muhammad Zubair, defendant No,1 respondent Ch. Muhammad Jamil approached him as a sympathizer and offered his services to deal with said Zubair Ahmed and in that connection he induced the appellant to execute a power of attorney in his favour to conduct the criminal cases against the said Zubair Ahmed. On 9-1-1972 the appellant was taken by him to the residence of Mohsin Siddiqui Advocate, for the said purpose and there the said advocate prepared some documents and the appellant was induced to sign the same without supplying copy thereof. It is alleged that it was given out to the appellant that the document, he had signed, was a simple power of attorney in favour of the said Ch. Muhammad Jamil for conducting the criminal cases against Zubair Ahmed and that it would have to be executed on the following day before the Registrar. Thereafter, Zubair Ahmed filed a Criminal Revision No,10 of 1972 in this Court for quashment of order of S.D.M. Passed under section 145, Cr.P.C. And, therefore, Ch. Muhammad Jameel once again induced the appellant to sign Vakalatnama of Mohsin Siddiqui Advocate for defending the said Criminal Revision in this Court. On 1-2-1972 when the said criminal revision was fixed for hearing the appellant came to this Court to enquire about the proceedings and while he was standing in the Verandah outside the Court room, he was forcibly taken by the said Ch. Muhammad Jamil from the Verandah and was kept as his captive and was forced to sign some papers, contents whereof were neither read over nor disclosed to him. It is also stated in the plaint that the said Criminal Revision was decided by order dated 2-3-1972 and the orders of the S.D.M. Were reversed but the appellant was kept completely in dark about the progress of the said matter. In the first week of February, 1972 when the appellant, as usual, went to the building for collecting the rent, he was informed by the tenants that notices purported to have been signed by him and other notices from Mohsin Siddiqui, Advocate on behalf of respondent No,2 Mst. Zahoor Fatima had been received by them informing that the building in question had been sold away by him to Mst. Zahoor Fatima and that they were required to pay the rent to her husband and attorney Ch. Muhammad Jamil. He was, therefore, got surprised and shocked and immediately contacted the respondent, Ch. Muhammad Jamil and asked him as to how he has got signed these notices without fully disclosing the contents thereof. He was continuously threatened and asked by respondent No,1, Ch. Muhammad Jamil to keep quiet otherwise his life would be in danger. It is further stated that the appellant is ignorant of English and can only sign in English. That the appellant was served with an injunction order of this Court in Suit No,84 of 1972 (Sama Essa v. Ramzan Muhammad) wherein the appellant was restrained from selling, mortgaging and/or transferring in any manner the property in suit. He informed respondent Ch. Muhammad Jamil accordingly. The said suit was decided and decreed as a result of an admission of claim by the appellant and the respondents were fully aware of the said claim. On 10- 3-1972, by a letter addressed by the appellant to the respondent No,1 the power of attorney executed by the former in favour of respondent No,1 was terminated and by a further letter, dated 11-3-1972 all the tenants of the building were informed that the letter of attornment received by them may be treated as cancelled. It is further alleged that respondent No,1 managed to keep pending the said letter addressed to him by the appellant with the postman for some days and avoided to receive it and ultimately on 24-3-1972 refused to receive it and the same was, therefore, returned to the appellant with the endorsement "refused". That by a public notice published on 18- 3-1972 in Daily "Dawn" and Daily "Hurriat" the appellant revoked the power of attorney executed in favour of respondent No,1- Ch. Muhammad Jamil and the public was accordingly informed. In reply to above notice, respondent No,1 got published a reply in Daily "Dawn" on 23-3-1972 from where the appellant came to know that the power of attorney dated 10-9-1972 was for a valuable consideration and irrevocable and was got executed by respondent No,1 for conveying the above property in favour of- this own wife for a total consideration of Rs,1,00,000. Thereafter, the said Ch. Muhammad Jamil threatened and, therefore, the appellant lodged a complaint to that effect with the S.P. East Division, Karachi. He, thereafter, obtained a certified copy of the alleged sale-deed dated 13-3-1972 from the office of Sub-Registrar, Karachi and came to know that the sale-deed has been executed by the respondent No,1 as attorney of the appellant in favour of respondent No,2 on 13-3-1972 and that there also existed an agreement of sale dated 10-1-1972 and a receipt dated 10-1-1972 for Rs,50,000 and that the alleged balance of sale consideration of Rs,50,000 was kept by the respondent No,2 to pay off the mortgage debts of Messrs Muhammad All Haji Allah Bux and Ramzan All and others debts of the appellant owed by him to the said building contractor Sama Essa. The appellant denied that he ever received any consideration towards the sale of said property and also denied execution of sale agreement dated 10-1-1972 and receipt dated 10-1-1972 for Rs,50,000.
2. ' Respondents Nos.1 and 2 denied all the allegations in their written statements and contended that the agreement of sale, the receipt and the power of attorney were executed voluntarily by the appellant for a valid consideration. They stated that the sale-deed executed by respondent No,1 in favour of respondent No,2 is valid, subsisting and binding on the appellant.
3. ' On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:--
(1) Has the plaintiff paid the proper court-fee on the suit? If so, to what effect?
(2) Whether the agreement to sell, receipt for Rs,50,000 and registered power of attorney, all dated 10-1-1972, were executed by the plaintiff under misrepresentation, duress or fraud, practised by defendant No,1? If so, what is its effect?
(3) Was the plaintiff served with an order of injunction passed in Suit No,84/72, restraining him from selling, mortgaging or transferring the suit property in any manner? If so, to what effect?
(4) Is the sale-deed dated 13-3-1972 executed by defendant No,1, as attorney of the plaintiff, liable to be cancelled, annulled and ordered to be delivered?
(5) What should the decree be?
4. ' Learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the suit by his judgment, dated 22-5-1984. Against this judgment and decree the appellant Ramzan Muhammad has preferred this appeal.
5. ' We have heard counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the suit.
6. ' The main controversy between the parties revolves around issue No,2. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant, Muhammad Ramzan, whose legal heirs have been brought on record, that the appellant was an illiterate man and could sign only and that he was not aware of the contents of the documents on which his signatures were obtained. He was given impression that the documents which he was to sign were the power of attorney in favour of respondent No,1 Ch. Muhammad Jamil to enable him to conduct the cases against Zubair Ahmed with whom he had some dispute. In support of his contentions learned counsel has cited various authorities, namely PLD 1963 Kw. 825, AIR 1934 Lah. 293 and 1986 SCMR 306 to argue that since Ramzan Muhammad could only sign and was an illiterate person, it was for the respondent Ch. Muhammad Jamil to prove beyond doubt that appellant's signatures on the documents were obtained after the contents thereof were properly explained to him.
7. ' There is no doubt that Ramzan Muhammad was an illiterate person and that he could only sign.
8. This fact, at the most, can show that he did not know writing or reading English or other language but it does not necessarily mean that he was not an intelligent man and could not understand the nature of the things. We cannot close our eyes from the circumstances which manifestly indicate that the above-described documents had been signed by Ramzan Muhammad knowing full well their contents. It is an admitted fact that. Ramzan Muhammad had a flourishing business and that he used to attend the offices of the advocates in connection with preparation of Income-tax and wealth-tax returns. It is also on the record that on the above date when he is said to have signed the documents under the impression that it was a power of attorney, he had signed other papers without even asking that why he was being made to sign the several papers. Further, one of the documents Exh.22/4 is a receipt for Rs,50,000 and the appellant Ramzan Muhammad had signed on this receipt on the revenue stamp of a value of paisas 50. This very fact gives an impression that he could not have signed on the revenue stamp without fully understanding the contents of the documents as he could not have taken the same as power of attorney. He also had appeared before Sub-Registrar, Karachi where he had opportunity of understanding the documents, if he so desired. It is an admitted position that before the Sub-Registrar, he was represented by an advocate and that from the advocate he could have ascertained the factual position. It is also in the evidence that before the Sub-Registrar, only one document Exh.22/5, which is power of attorney, had been produced but there is nothing on the record to indicate that Ramzan Muhammad had taken any action to ascertain as to what had happened to other papers including the document on which the revenue stamp had been affixed.
9. ' It is also quite clear that allegations of a very serious nature had been made against Mr. Mohsin Siddiqui Advocate but despite that even after 1-2-1972, when the appellant Ramzan Muhammad is said to have become aware of what had happened, he retained Mr. Mohsin Siddiqui as his advocate in Criminal Revision No,10 of 1972 and did not take any action to discharge him. It is also very important to note that Ramzan Muhammad had filed a counter-affidavit Exh.22/8 in the above-noted Revision on 7-2-1972 which he had sworn on the same day in the Court. The endorsement of the Commissioner for taking affidavits mentions that the contents of the affidavit had been read over to Ramzan Muhammad in Urdu. In this affidavit in paragraph 13 it is mentioned:-- 'That in reply to para. 6 of the petition, I say that I am the owner of the premises and have contracted to sell the same to Mst. Zahoor Fatima but final conveyance has not taken place."
10. ' Appellant Ramzan Muhammad, at no stage, disputed the correctness of the above statement made by him in the counter-affidavit on 7-2-1972.
11. ' All the above-mentioned facts and circumstances prove that Ramzan Muhammad had signed the above-described documents knowing fully their contents and that there had remained nothing for the respondent Ch. Muhammad Jamil to prove. The learned Single Judge had, on appraisal of the A evidence, arrived at correct conclusion and we have no reason to disagree with him.
12. ' For the foregoing reasons we dismiss this appeal.
13. ' By a short order on 20-10-1992, we had dismissed this appeal and above are the reasons for the same.