SAYED NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J.- Petitioner (Muhammad Younis) filed a suit for cancellation of power-of-attorney dated 28.11.1987 registered on 9.12.1987 as well as sale deed dated 6.7.1988 registered on 12.7.1988. It was maintained that the petitioner was owner of house having an area of 5 marlas, the petitioner had business relationship with Naseer-ud-Din and on account of business dealings, he had to pay certain amount. It was claimed that an agreement was executed between he, petitioner and Naseer-ud-Din on 12.12.1987 as security for repayment of Rs. 1,50,000/- which was payable by the petitioner. It was added that in terms of the understanding, if petitioner would fail in making payment, Muhammad Afzal, respondent No. 2 would be entitled to sell the house. It was also alleged that respondent No. 2 by misusing the power given to him, sold the house in question to Atta Muhammad, respondent No. 1 vide sale deed dated 6.7.1988, which sale was made in consideration of Rs. 8,000/-. The claim of the petitioner was that since notice for payment of amount was not given, therefore, power-of-attorney could not be utilised nor the property could be sold and the sale deed was collusive. The suit was resisted on the ground that the petitioner had no cause of action, petitioner was estopped to file the suit, the sale was made for value and that the suit was a counterblast to the ejectment proceedings and also that he attorney was fully competent to sell the property who sold the same, in accordance with law.
2. After recording evidence and considering the same, learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit by his judgment dated 18.31993. It was held that the sale deed was validity executed by the attorney and that the plea raised in the plaint for cancellation of document could not sustain on account of evidence on record. Petitioner went in appeal which to was dismissed on 10.7.1994 by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner executed the power of attorney which could not be used unless the until the petitioner had failed to return an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and since no notice for payment of this amount was given, the sale deed could not be executed and also that the deed having been executed without notice, cannot be approved. It was added that the sale deed was made by the attorney in favour of his- beneficiary and, therefore, it could not sustain.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents supported the to judgments and argued that concurrent findings of fact were recorded against the petitioner which were not open to question in revisional jurisdiction, particularly, when no misreading was pointed out. It was added that the vendee and the attorney were not related to each other nor the vendee was beneficiary of the attorney. Lastly, it was submitted that the power-of-attorney was prior in time while the alleged agreement, which was not proved, was subsequent in time and it could not be assumed that the authority given in the power-of-attorney was conditional and depended on the happening of certain events.
5. I have given deeper considerations to the submissions made and have minutely reviewed the material on record.
6. The case of the petitioner, as pleaded is that he had some business relation with Naseer-ud-Din whom the petitioner owed a some of Rs. 1,50,000/- and for securing its repayment, the agreement and also the ower-of-attorney were executed. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that petitioner could not prove any business relation with the vendee nor could prove the agreement Exh. PI. The perusal of power-of-attorney Exh. P2, makes it obvious that attorney was given exclusive powers to sell and alienate the property. The authority given was irrevocable. Power-of-attorney was executed on 28.11.1987 and was registered on 9.12.1987. It is nowhere mentioned in the power-of-attorney that the powers given therein were exercisable subject to certain conditions or on happening of certain events. On the contrary, the document expressly authorises the attorney to manage the property, represent the principal, to sell and dispose of the property and to get the sale deed executed and registered. In view of the unambiguous terms of the power-of-attorney the powers given to Muhammad Afzal respondent were not controlled by any pre-condition.
7. Main reliance of the petitioner was no Exh. PI, i.e. An agreement allegedly executed by Muhammad Younis, petitioner. This document cannot be said to be an agreement, as from the wording of the document, one can safely assume that it was a form of declaration and undertaking by Muhammad Younis to repay the amount allegedly payable to Naseer-ud-Din. It was an admission in one's on favour as there is no second party to the document. It is not case of the petitioner that Naseer-ud-Din signed this document. In this document, the petitioner has declared that he owed Rs. 1.50,000/- to Naseer-ud-Din, he was owner of house in square No. 64, he had already given power-of-attorney to Muhammad Afzal which is irrevocable and that if that money is not paid, Muhammad Afzal would be fully competent to sell the house. Muhammad Afzal or for that the matter, Naseer-ud-Din are not party to that document and is statedly signed by Muhammad Younis. Marginal witnesses are Mukhtar Ahmad and Muhammad Ashraf who were never produced in evidence. The document was tendered in the statement of Muhammad Younis which would obviously not prove the same. It was for this reason, that learned trial Court refused to rely on this document as it was not proved either against Muhammad Afzal or against the purchaser. It may be observed that the power-of-attorney had already been executed which did not create any clog in the authority of the attorney, as is being pleaded through Exh. PI. If the petitioner intended to place such restrictions, the proper course was to make the attorney a party to the document and to get his consent. Since Muhammad Afzal is not a party, therefore, declaration in one's on favour through Exh. PI could not bind Muhammad Afzal. Even otherwise, the document also shows that Muhammad Afzal. Even otherwise, the document also shows that Muhammad Afzal was competent to sell the property, if the petitioner would be failing in returning the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to Naseer-ud-Din. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had paid the money to Naseer-ud-Din or that the attorney had become ineffective as the debt had already discharged. This being so, the sale of property by the attorney in a situation where the authority is not disputed, cannot be questioned.
8. As regard, the arguments that the sale was made in favour of the beneficiary, the same is without substance. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner did not deny that the vendee was not related to attorney or to Naseer-ud- Din. The alleged business relation could not otherwise be proved independently and in this regard concurrent findings of fact have been recorded against the petitioner. This being so, the sale made in favour of respondent No. 1 was valid.
9. The to Courts below, on appraisal of the evidence, concluded that the sale was made for consideration, the authority of the attorney was undisputed, the restriction against the exercise of authority could not be roved, the collusion between purchaser and the attorney could not be established, and the same was established to have been made for consideration. These findings do not suffer from any misreading of evidence or error of law. No illegality can be pointed out in the conclusion drawn by to courts below. Resultantly, this revision, lacking substance, is dismissed.