' The brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that the land in question measuring 100 Kanals which is situated in Chak No,219/J.B. Tehsil and District Jhang was allotted to respondent No,2 as oustee of Gujranwala Cantt vide order, dated 5-1-1980. Respondent No,2 executed general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner on 11-6-1980. The petitioner on the basis of the general power of attorney on behalf of respondent No,2 executed agreement to sell with respondent No,3.
The petitioner in the capacity of general attorney of respondent No,2 filed an application that tenancy rights of the allotted land may be alienated under section 19 of Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 in favour of respondent No,3 Fazal Karim. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector accorded sanction vide order, dated 7-8-1985. Respondent No,2 having come to know about this order filed a review petition before the Collector/D.C., Jhang on the ground that he had not appointed any general attorney and that land had been transferred to Fazal Karim respondent No,3 without his consent on the basis of bogus deed of power of attorney.
The Deputy Commissioner/Collector after securing permission from the Commissioner reviewed the order, dated 7-8-1985 vide order, dated 4.3-1989. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad who dismissed the same vide order, dated 6-11-1989. The petitioner filed suit for declaration allegedly challenging the vires of the aforesaid orders in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jhang on 15-2-1988 on the ground that respondent No,2 was major at the time of execution of general power of attorney. The respondents filed written statement and controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether this suit is incompetent in its present form? OPD-2
(2) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD-2
(3) Whether defendant No,2 is entitled to recover special costs under section 35-A, C.P.C.? If so, of what amount? OPD
(4) Whether the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction has been incorrectly fixed, if so what is correct valuation of the suit? OPD
(5) Whether this suit is barred under section 56 of the Specific Relief Act? OPD
(6) Whether the plaint is liable to rejection under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.? OPD
(7) Whether defendant No,2 validly executed general power of attorney on 11-6-1980 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP
(8) Whether defendant No,2 agreed to sell the land in dispute to the plaintiff on 11-6-1990 and executed agreement to this effect in favour of the plaintiff, if so, on what terms and conditions? OPP
(9) Whether the suit-land was validly transferred in favour of defendant No,3? OPP
(10) Whether defendant No,2 at the time of alleged general power of attorney and the agreement was a minor and the general power of attorney and agreement are fictitious and based on fraud?
OPD-2 (10-A) Whether the orders, dated 7-8-1985, 4-3-1989 and 6-11-1989 passed by defendants Nos.1 and 4 are illegal, void against the facts, ultra vires, mala fide and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff, if so, of what effect? OPP
(11) Relief.
' The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 13-11-1995. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before Additional District Judge, Jhang who dismissed the same vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 4-4-1998. Hence the present revision petition.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner by misreading and non-reading of evidence on record as a result of which there has been miscarriage of justice and material irregularity has been committed by both the Courts below. He further urges that general power of attorney was executed by respondent No,2 in favour of the petitioner of his own free-will at the time when his age was 22 years. Therefore, both the Courts below erred in law to non-suit the petitioner without even adverting to the date mentioned in the document in question which clearly reveals that respondent No,2 was major at the time of execution of general power of attorney on 6-11-1980 in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that D.W.3 Muhammad Khan admitted in cross- examination that respondent No,2/defendant No,2 was major at the time of execution of general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that birth certificate does not depict real picture qua the particulars of respondent No,2 in which firstly it was written "cancelled" and subsequently it was entered by filing an affidavit on 7-10-1988 along with a copy of national identity card. He further urges that age of respondent No,2 was mentioned in general power of attorney as 22 years. He summed up his arguments that judgments of both the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of the record.
3. Learned counsel of the respondent submits that both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner after proper appreciation of evidence. Learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any piece of evidence which was misread by both the Courts below.
Both the Courts below after proper appreciation of evidence have specifically given finding against the petitioner to the effect that respondent No,2/defendant No,2 was minor at the time of execution of general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner by respondent No,2/defendant No,2 on 11-6- 1980.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is better and appropriate to reproduce operative part of impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- "9. In order to prove their assertion both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence.
Exh.P.3 is the original general power of attorney; allegedly executed by respondent/defendant No,2 in favour of the appellant/plaintiff on 11-6-1980 in respect of the suit-land. The perusal of this document indicates that the age of respondent/defendant No,2 is given as 22 years, but there is a cutting on both these figures indicating the age, document Exh.P.2 is the agreement to sell, dated 11:6-1980 which was allegedly executed at the time of execution of Exh.P.3. A perusal of this document indicates that the age of the respondent/ defendant No,2 has been recorded as 19 years. In both these documents, the factum of age is different and it creates a doubt about the plea of the appellant/plaintiff that the respondent/ defendant No,2 was major at the time of execution of the aforesaid document. This contradiction spoils the case of the appellant/plaintiff. I find another document Exh.D.2, a certified copy of eligibility certificate of respondent/defendant No,2. It is dated 29-8-1970 and in this document, respondent/defendant No,2 has been shown as minor. Exh.P.4 is certified copy of birth entry of respondent/defendant No,2 and it indicates the date of birth as 21-1-1961. This entry was got entered in the relevant register on 1-10-1988 by filing an affidavit. It may be added here that the instant suit was filed on 15-2-1988 and much before the filing of the aforesaid affidavit, the respondent/ defendant No,2 had started his efforts to get cancelled the transfer of tenancy rights made in favour of respondent/ defendant No,3 and this seems to be improbable and does not appeal to reason that the respondent/defendant No,2 would during the pendency of the suit, get the said entry recorded against his own interest. Record further reveals that this entry was subsequently cancelled on the application of respondent/ defendant No,2. There is another document Exh.D.2/2, a copy of register Dakhil Kharaj, Primary School, Kot Shakir in which the date of birth of respondent/defendant No,2 was given as 15-11-1969.
This also indicates that the respondent/defendant No,2 could not get entered his date of birth in Exh.P.4 against his own interest. The appellant/plaintiff had tried to prove that respondent/defendant No,2 was major at the time of execution of aforesaid documents, but he miserably failed to do so and the fact proved on the record is that the respondent/defendant No,2 was minor at the time of execution of those documents which have got no legal bindings effect at all as being minor, the respondent/defendant No,2 was not competent to enter into the agreement to sell. The appellant/plaintiff on the basis of this general power of attorney, transferred the tenancy rights in favour of the respondent/defendant No,3 which are also nullity in view of minority of the respondent/defendant No,2. The learned trial Court after proper appraisal of record, rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent/defendant No,2 was minor at the time of alleged execution of agreement to sell and the registered power of attorney and these documents carries no weight in law. The learned trial Court after proper appraisal of record rightly decided all the issues. There is no non-reading and misreading of evidence on the part of the learned trial Court in respect of findings. I also find myself in full agreement with the same. The findings are supported with evidence on record and are hereby upheld.
10. As a result of above said discussion, I see no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed with costs."
' The aforesaid operative part of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that First Appellate Court has reappraisal the evidence on record and upheld the finding of the trial Court. It is better and appropriate to reproduce basic facts keeping in view documentary evidence on record to resolve the controversy between the parties:-
(i) General power of attorney was executed on 11-6-1980 in which age of respondent No,2/defendant No,2 was mentioned as 22 years.
(ii) Agreement to sell was executed on 11-6-1980 wherein age of respondent No,2 was mentioned as 19 years.
(iii) Exh.D.2 is certified copy of eligibility certificate, dated 29-8-1970 wherein respondent No,2/defendant No,2 was shown as minor.
(iv) Exh.P.4 shows date of birth of respondent No,2/defendant No,2 as 21-1-1961 which was entered in the relevant register on 5-10-1988 by filing an affidavit whereas the petitioner filed suit against respondent/defendant No,2 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jhang, on 15-2-1988.
(v) Exh.D.2/2 is copy of Register Dakhil Kharaj which reveals the date of birth of respondent No,2/defendant No,2 as 15-11-1969.
' In case the aforesaid entries and documents be read along with the oral evidence on record then both the Courts below were justified to give finding of fact against the petitioner that respondent No,2/defendant No,2 was minor at the time of execution of general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner on 11-6-1980. Coupled with the fact that agreement to sell was also executed on the same day by the petitioner in favour of respondent No,3. Specific issue was also framed on account of divergent pleas of the parties by the trial Court in the following terms:-- ' "Whether defendant No,2 validly executed general power of attorney on 11-6-1980 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP"
' Respondent No,2 denied his signatures on Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2. He also denied that he never appeared before the Sub-Registrar for registration of these documents. He also lodged criminal case against the petitioner/ plaintiff and marginal witnesses but the same was dismissed. The execution of the document in question was denied specially by respondent No,2/defendant No,2.
Therefore, onus shifted to the petitioner to prove the same in accordance with the provisions of Articles 17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Salman Ali v. Maqsood Ahmad and others 2000 YLR 1983. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in Maqsood Ahmad and others v. Suleman Ali PLD 2003 SC 31. It is settled principle of law that plaintiff has to prove his case on its own footing by producing evidence and he has no right to claim that his suit be decreed on the weaknesses of the opposite party/defendant in the suit. Both the Courts below including Collector and Commissioner were justified to unveil real transaction where validity of document itself is challenged and to ascertain real nature of transaction as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Shafi and others v. Allah Ditta Khan PLD 1986 SC 519. As mentioned above, both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner after proper appreciation of evidence and the learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any piece of evidence which was misread or non-read c by both the Courts below or decided the case in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgments of the Courts below. The revision petition has no merit as per law laid down by this Court in Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Syed Khalid Mehmood 1985 CLC 657 by following the dictum laid down by the Privy Council in N.S. Vankatagiri Ayyangar and another v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras PLD 1949 PC 26 to interfere in finding of fact recorded by the Courts below under section 115. C.P.C. It is pertinent to mention here that judgment of this Court was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court vide judgment, dated 31-3-1985 passed in C.P. No,1146 of 1984, which was again reaffirmed and approved by the Honourable Supreme Court in the reported judgment Ghulam Qadir's case PLD 1988 SC 625. The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to bring the case within the parameters prescribed by the Privy Council in the aforesaid judgment.
In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.