' This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 21-4-1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhakkar, whereby he was pleased to set aside the judgment and decree dated 7-10- 1991 passed- by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhakkar, in Civil Suit No.514 of 1989.
2. Petitioners Fayyaz Ali Khan and Ejaz Ali Khan are the successors-in-interest of their brother Imdad Ali Khan, who had instituted a declaratory suit claiming ownership of 120 Kanals of land situated in Chak No.65/DB, Tehsil Kalurkot, the full description of which is given in the head-note of the plaint.
Besides claiming ownership, he had challenged the validity of registered power-of-attorney dated 29-9-1986 which he had admittedly executed on 22-5-1983. The plaintiff averred that the suit-land was allotted to him by Thal Development Authority under the Abadkari Scheme. According to him, he had brought the land under cultivation and fulfilled all the conditions of allotment and paid all the instalments. Thereafter, he appointed Ashfaque Ali Khan (defendant No.1) to manage the affairs and obtain proprietary rights from the concerned authorities. His case is that he never authorized defendant No.1 to mortgage or alienate the land in any manner. He alleged that defendant No.1 deceitfully and collusively got the power-of-attorney registered containing authorization to mortgage and sell the suit-land. He maintained that he had made a statement before the Sub-Registrar, Bhakkar on 29-6-1986 that he had not empowered defendant No.1 to mortgage or sell the stz.:tland. He further stated that he had revoked the power-of-attorney on 29- 6-1986 under intimation to defendant No. 1 . Ti para No.8 of the plaint, he also challenged the claim of ownership set up by defendant No.2 on the basis of agreement dated 29-9-1986.
3. The defendants contested the suit and raised a number of preliminary objections in their written statements, which led to the framing of the following issues:-- ' Issues:
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to bring the present suit? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit-land and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is not maintainable on account of misjoinder of causes of action? OPD
(5) Whether the suit has been incorrectly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction if so what is the correct valuation for both of the purposes? OPD
(6) Whether the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to recover special costs from the plaintiffs under section 35-A of the C.P.C., if so to what extent? OPD (7)Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land as, allottee of the same? OPP (8)Whether the Registered Agreement to sell dated 29-9-1986 is against law and facts without consideration, collusive, based on fraud, void and inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPP
(9) Whether the general power of attorney dated 22-5-1983 is against law and facts, based on fraud, void and inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiffs to the e,(tea, that it does not empowered the general attorney to transfer the land by way of sale mortgage etc.? OPP (9A) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their conduct to bring this suit? OPD (9B) Whether the suit-land has been incorrectly described, if so, its effect? OPD
(10) Relief.
4. The learned Trial Court relying upon the statement of Muhammad Anwar Khan (P.W.1) and Yousuf Ali (P.W.2) and Hafiz Fayyaz Ali Khan (P.W.3) decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
' Consequently, he decreed the suit vide judgment dated 7-12-1991. The respondents/defendants challenged the decree by way of an appeal. The learned District Judge was pleased to accept the same and set aside the findings of the learned trial Court on Issues Nos.2, 7, 8 and 9 vide impugned judgment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had challenged the validity of the power-ofattorney as such the respondents were under a legal obligation to prove its execution.
Their omission to produce any marginal witness of the document would lead to the logical conclusion that the execution of the power-of-attorney is not established and the evidence of the plaintiff would be treated as sufficient to prove that the plaintiff had not vested defendant No.1 with the power to mortgage or alienate the land in any manner.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the execution of the power-of-attorney and the appearance of the executant before the Sub-registrar, Kalurkot, had not been disputed by the plaintiffs, as such the registered document as a whole would be treated as a valid document and the defendant was not required to prove its execution.
7. I have considered the arguments and have perused the record. The plaintiff himself admitted to have executed the power-of-attorney in favour of defendant Na. 1 . He also admits to havt appeared before the Sub-Registrar at the time of the registration of the document. However, the plaintiff took an exception by saying that he had not authorized defendant No.1 to mortgage or sell the suit-land- in any manner. This assertion of the plaintiff is inconsistent with the contents of the registered power-of-attorney (Exh.D.1), wherein defendant No.1 was invested with the power to sell the suit-land after obtaining proprietary rights. No interpolation appears to have been made in the power-of-attorney. In view of the admission regarding the execution of the power-of-attorney, it was for the plaintiff to prove the exception claimed by them. The oral denial made by the plaintiff is not sufficient to dislodge the presumption of correctness attached to the registered document.
Therefore, the sale agreement dated 29-9-1986 on the strength of the registered power-of- attorney dated 25-5-1983 was lawful. Thus, the findings of the learned District Judge, Bhakkar, require no interference, therefore, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision Petition Dismissed.