AKHTAR SAID, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I).- The vendor Ali Muhammad is alleged to have given a power- of-attorney to the husband of the respondent. This power-of-attorney, whether genuine or fake, was registered on 30.6.1982. It was on the basis of this registered document that the registered sale-deed of 13.8.1986 was executed. It was on the basis of this deed that mutation No. 162 was attested on 27.2.1988.
2. The argument of the petitioner that the power-of-attorney was fake because consideration is not adequate, is not relevant before the Revenue Court. Even if this has force, it is the function of Civil Court and not of Revenue Courts to sit in judgment over the genuineness of registered documents. The same applies to the argument that the husband of the respondent waited for one and a half year before he got the mutation attested on the basis of the deed. These are factors which the petitioners have urged to prove fraud. But circumstances tending to establish fraud concerning a registered document can be examined only by a Civil Court.
3. There is no difference whether a document is executed by an owner personally or by some one else on his behalf who has a power-of-attorney from the owner. Again, the relevant authorities can determine whether the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee have been adequately paid or not. In any case, as piece of evidence this fact can be taken into consideration by a Civil Court.
4. In view of the above arguments I find that Revenue Courts cannot go beyond the registered power-of-attorney and the registered sale-deed to establish fraud. This is well-settled law. I would, therefore, reject the petition.