RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, J.--- This R.F.A. Arises out of the judgment of learned Senior Civil Judge, Attock, dated 16-2-1988 whereby he. Dismissed the declaratory suit of the appellant with costs.
2. Mst. Ghafooran Jan filed a suit for declaration in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Attock, to the effect that the agreement to sell executed in favour of defendant No. l and transfer of property in favour of defendants Nos.2 to 6 through registered sale-deed, dated 15-3-1980, registered sale- deed, dated 6-9-1982 in favour of defendant No.7, registered sale-deed, dated 27-7-1981 in favour of defendants Nos.8 and 9, sale Mutation No.206, dated 30-11-1983 in favour of defendants Nos.8 to 11, registered sale-deed, dated 23-8-1981 by defendants Nos. 8 and 9 in favour, of defendants Nos; 12 and the mortgage of the suit-land by defendant No. 12 in favour of defendant No. 13 through registered sale-deed, dated 20-12-1982 are illegal, without jurisdiction, null and void without the consent of the plaintiff, inoperative against her rights and liable to be cancelled. As a consequential relief, the plaintiff has prayed for possession of the land, the detail whereof is fully described in the head-note of the plaint.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 14 to 16 are sisters and defendant No. l is, their brother. They belong to Pathan family and the appellant is a Parda observing lady. Defendant No. l was appointed as their general attorney through registered power of attorney, dated 1-4-1979 for the management of their landed property situated in different districts. She contended that defendant No. l was only empowered to supervise and manage their lands. Defendant No. l had no authority to sell or mortgage the suit-land nor he was authorized for this purpose. The plaintiff came to know about four months prior to the institution of the suit that defendant No. l has sold, the suit-land without her consent and of defendants Nos. 14 to 16. The sale-deeds executed by defendant No. l in favour of defendants -Nos.2 to 11 on the basis of general attorney of the. Plaintiff and defendants Nos. 14 to 16 are illegal, null and void. The transaction settled under the said registered power of attorney be cancelled. The plaintiff approached the defendants to admit her claim but they refused to do so. Thereafter, she instituted the suit.
Defendants Nos. 14 to 16 are sisters of the plaintiffs but have not joined hands with her, therefore, they have been impleaded as pro forma defendants.
4. Defendants Nos. l, 8 to 12 and 14 to 16 through joint written statement controverted all the allegations of the plaintiff. They categorically averred in para.3 of the written statement that the plaintiff has resorted to litigation only due to family disputes and at the instance of her husband.
There some preliminary objections that the plaintiff was estopped to bring the suit and it was barred by time.
5. Defendants Nos.2 to 5 in their written statement averred that all the sales were settled with the consent of the plaintiff and she is bound by the same. She is estopped by her conduct to challenge the sales. The suit is not maintainable. They have built their houses on the suit-land and in case the decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff, they are entitled to recover Rs.2,60,000 from her for the improvements and construction. Defendant No.6 also contradicted the stand of the plaintiff in his separate written statement by contending that he had purchased 2 Kanals and 15 Marlas from the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 14- to 16 through their general 'attorney defendant No. l for Rs.1,10,000 and he a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and is protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. Defendant No.7 also resisted the suit through his written statement, dated 8-6-1985. Defendant No. l in his written statement averred that the mortgage of the suit land with the Bank was in order and has claimed special costs under section 35-A, C.P.C.
6. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues:- - '
(1) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her act and conduct to bring this suit? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD
(3) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction in case of the property schedule Dal, R.?
(4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?---
(5) Whether it is not maintainable in its present forum?
(6) Whether defendant No. l being general attorney of the plaintiff and unrestricted powers to alienate the property in suit, if so, its effect?
(7) Whether rights of defendant No.7 are protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act?
(8) Whether suit for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction has not been properly valued, if so, what is the correct valuation?
(9) Whether defendants Nos.2 to 5 have effected any improvement on the suit land, if so, to what extend and with what effect?
(10) Whether defendants Nos.2 to 5 are entitled to refund of sale money and costs of improvements, if so what amount?
(11) Whether defendants are entitled to special costs under section 35-A of C.P.C.?
(12) Whether alienation of suit-property by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants Nos.2 to 13 through different transactions as narrated in the head-note of the plaint are illegal, without authority and consent of plaintiff and as such void and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP
(13) Relief.
7. The plaintiff produced two witnesses beside herself in support of her claim in the trial Court. She produced documentary evidence as Exh.P.I. To Exh.P.14. Likewise, defendants examined one witness in addition to Mst. Farooq Jan defendant No.16 as D.W.2 and Anwar Khan defendant No.1 appeared himself as D.W.3 who supported the. Defendants' claim. They also produced documentary evidence Exh.D.2 and Exh.D.3, copies of the judgment and decree and closed their evidence. The learned trial Judge after recording the evidence of the parties, and hearing their learned counsel dismissed the suit by holding that the registered power of attorney Exh.D.l was duly executed by the appellant authorizing defendant No. l in addition to other acts to sell the property. Defendant No.1 in accordance with the authority conferred on him through registered document Exh.D.l effected the sale. The appellant dissatisfied with the judgment of learned Senior Civil Judge has preferred this appeal.
8. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is a Pardanasheen lady and has not authorized defendant No. 1 to sell the property and he was only empowered to supervise the same but he in violation of the authority conferred on him sold it in favour of his sons and grandsons and deprived her of ownership of her share in the property. The act of defendant No. l is beyond the authority, therefore, all the-transactions made in pursuance to Exh.D.l are void and liable to be cancelled.
9. Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant and his other sisters duly appointed defendant No. l as their lawful attorney through registered power of attorney Exh.D.1. The contents of the documents itself clearly shows that he was given authority by the appellant besides others to sell the property and the sales effected by defendant No. l is in accordance with the express authority conferred on him.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. Exh.D.I is the registered general power of attorney executed by the appellant and defendants Nos. 14 to 16 who are real sisters of defendant No. 1. Mst. Farooq Jan defendant No. 16 appeared as D.W.2 and stated that the general power of attorney was executed by her alongwith other sisters including the appellant in favour of their real brother Anwar Khan, defendant No. 1. It was duly executed and registered with their free consent. Anwar Khan, defendant No. l while appearing as D. W.3 has given detailed statement in support of his averments set up in the written statement. According to him, the suit was instituted at the instance of husband of the appellant on account of family differences.
The perusal of the contents of Exh.D.I clearly shows that by this document, Anwar Khan, real brother of Mst. Ghafooran Jan, Mst. Sanawar Jan, Mst. Asmat Jan and Mst. Farooq Jan, real sisters of Anwar Khan, defendant No. 1, appointed him as their lawful attorney. They put their thumb impressions on Exh.D.l duly registered on 1st of April, 1982 by the Sub-Registrar, Khanewal. By this document, he was authorized to manage, supervise and do all other acts including sale, gift, will and exchange of the entire property belonging to his aforesaid sisters in District Multan, Attock and wherever it is. The contention of the appellant that they conferred no such authority on their brother namely Anwar Khan is ill-founded. We have gone through the original registered power of attorney Exh.D.l. Its last five lines clearly empowered defendant No.1 to sell, gift, exchange or execute Will of the properties belonging to his aforesaid sisters. The deed was presented for registration. They themselves appeared before the Sub-Registrar and were.. Recognized by Abdul Ghafaar Khan Khattak, Advocate. The document was read over to them and thereafter all the four sisters thumb-marked it. The oral evidence cannot be given preference over documentary evidence. The documentary evidence particularly registered document carries presumption of truth and if a party controverts it then a very strong and exceptional evidence is required to rebut it but the appellant failed to establish that Exh.D.I was not executed by her and its contents are untrue.
11. It is also apparent from Exh.D.2 and Exh.D.3 that Muhammad Rafiq son of the appellant pre- empted the sale effected through Mutation No.206, dated 30-11-1983 on 4-3-1984 which shows that the appellant had the knowledge of the aforesaid sale. The same having been pre-empted within four months of the sale by her son. Her son got the information about the sale through her mother and at that time no such claim was raised. The other executants of Exh.D.I i.e. Defendants Nos. 14 to 16 have acknowledged the execution of documents in favour of- their brother. One of theta, Mst.
Farooq Jan appeared as D.W.2 and 'categorically denied the claim of the appellant. She unequivocally stated that all the four sisters had executed general power of attorney in favour of their brother in Khanewal Courts and he transferred the land on the basis of general attorney on different dates. No doubt, defendant No.1 transferred some of the land in favour of his sons and grandsons yet this fact does not negate the express authority conferred on him for transfer of land to any one he liked. He has unrestricted power to alienate the property by virtue of Exh.D.l. The objection of the appellant on this ground does not vitiate the sales-effected by defendant No. l in favour of his sons and grandsons. After having gone through the documentary as well as oral evidence of the parties, we are not persuaded to believe that the appellant has not authorized defendant No.1 through Exh.D.I to effect the sales of the disputed property. The impugned decree is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not open to interference.
Consequently, this appeal having no substance is dismissed with no order as to costs.