This judgment shall decide Civil Revision No. 1785 of 1990 and Civil Revision No. 1786 of 1990 as they arise out of suits involving common questions.
2. On 10-1-1981 respondent No.1 filed two suits. The suit out of which Civil Revision No. 1785 of 1990 has arisen concerns 90 Kanals land in Chak No. 26/1-AL Okara, while the subject-matter of other suit (C.R. No. 1786/90) is land measuring 12 Kanals in Chak No.27/1-AL. According to the plaints the said land was allotted to respondent No. l under Islamabad Oustee Scheme and the proprietary- ship was conferred on him vide a conveyance deed date-d1636He appointed respondent No.2 as general attorney on 27-1-1966 but then cancelled the same on 15-4-1969. Thereafter, Sultan Khan respondent No.2 proceeded to execute a power of attorney in favour of Nazir Akhtar petitioner on 27-9-1980. Acting on the said power of attorney he proceeded to transfer the suit land mentioned above in favour of petitioners Nos. l and 2 in C. R. No. 1785 and petitionerNo. l in C.R. No.1786 of 1990 respectively vide registered sale-deeds dated 30-9-1980. The said latter power of attorney and sale-deeds were challenged on the ground that respondent No.2 had no authority to appoint a sub-agent particularly when his own power of attorney stood cancelled. The defence taken in the written statement was that the vendees acted in good faith while purchasing the land; that respondent No.2 was not issued any notice of cancellation. Respondent No.2 did not appear and made any defence. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court vide a judgment and decree dated 27-10-1987 dismissed both the suits. The appeals filed by respondent No. l were heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Okara, who allowed both the appeals on 21-7-1990 and decreed the suits.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that agency in favour of respondent No.2 was coupled with interest and as such could not have been revoked; that there is no evidence on record that respondent No.2 was aware of the fact of cancellation; And that the vendees are bona fide purchasers for value. Learned counsel for the respondent No. l on the other hand supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge.
4. I have gone through the copies of the record appended with these civil revisions. I have already referred to the pleadings of the parties above in some details. There is no plea at all that the authority was coupled with interest and as such irrevocable within the meanings of section 202 of the Contract Act. Respondent No.4 did put in appearance as D. W. And stated that he had paid Rs.35,000 to respondent No. l but in his cross-examination stated that he has no receipt for the said amount. Respondent No. l on the other hand entered the witness-box as P. W.2 and it was not even suggested to him that respondent No.2 had paid him any money. There is thus, neither any plea nor evidence that the authority was coupled with interest so as to render it irrevocable. On the other hand it is but evident on the face of record that respondent No.2 or for that matter the said sub-agent had not taken any steps in the matter of allotment of the land. P. W.4 is the colony clerk who appeared with record and with reference to the same stated that no application is on record in the matter of allotment having been filed by sultan Khan acting as attorney of respondent No. 1.
On the other hand in his cross-examination he states that respondent No. l had filed an application for allotment on 19-4-1967 through Lt.-Col. Muhammad Sadiq; that the allotment order was also delivered through the said attorney. According to the witness all the payments were made by respondent No.1. There is thus, nothing on record to show that respondent No.2 even acted as an attorney of respondent No.1in the matter of allotment and conferment of proprietary rights.
5. Learned counsel then refers clause 2 of Power of Attorney dated 27-1-1966 which states that respondent No. l shall not be competent to cancel the power of attorney for 35 years and that it will not be revocable. To my mind in the absence of any evidence that respondent No.2 had interest in property forming subject-matter of the agency, the said clause would not be a bar to the revocation of the agency. It may be noted that the purposes for which the authority was given stand clearly specified in the document itself and it is matter of record that respondent No.2 had not taken any steps in the matter till such time that his authority was revoked or for that matter even till today.
6. So far as the question of notice is concerned, it is an admitted fact that power of attorney was cancelled by means of registered document that was registered in the same office where the power of attorney itself was registered. The deed of cancellation clearly narrates the particulars of the power of attorney that had been cancelled. In the circumstances of the present case the registration of the said document should constitute sufficient notice. It is but apparent on record that after the cancellation of the power of attorney on 15-4-1969, it was in the year 1980 that the vendees proceeded to pruchase the land and that too not on the basis of original power of attorney but from the sub-agent of respondent No.2. It was for them to have checked up the record of the Registrar's office before acting upon the representation made by the sub-agent that the original power of attorney is still in force,
7. The land in question is State land and owenrship is conferred by means of registered conveyance deed. Learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that the attorney or said - sub- agent was not in possession of the same. It is otherwise a matter of record that the said conveyance deed in fact was in possession of respondent No. 1. To my mind the minimum requirement on the part of vendees/petitioners was to have insisted upon production and examination of the said basic document of title. Thus, what to speak of an inquiry as contemplated by section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, they have not even taken due care in the matter while proceeding to purchase the suit land.
8. Needless to add that by now it is well-settled that the power of attorney is to be strictly construed. A reference be made to the case of Fida Muhammad v. Pir Muhammad Khan through L.Rs. (PLD 1985 SC 341). The authority to appoint a sub-agent is akin to the appointment of pleader and Advocate as mentioned in particular part of the document which authorises the attorney to appear and act in Courts and offices. No such power stands spelt out in the matter of the powers stated in clause 3 of the said document dated 27-1-1966. Thus, from whatever angle seen the sale- -deeds in favour of vendees petitioners are without lawful authority and as such are void. The learned Additional District Judge has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgments and decrees enabling this Court to interfere with the same in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Both these civil revisions are accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.