1986 CLC 2616

The plaintiff files certified copies obtained from the Registrar's Office of the following documents:‑

(i) Sale. agreement, dated 18‑8‑1980.

(ii) Power of Attorney, dated 18‑8‑1980.

(iii) Conveyance deed of immovable property valued at Rs.2,40,500.

(iv) General Power of Attorney of plaintiff No.2 in favour of plaintiff No. 1.

2. Since the plaint is on oath and the defendants are already ex parte there is no need for recording evidence in the matter. The documents filed today are certified registered copies obtained by the plaintiff from the Registrar's Office, photostat copies whereof are already on record I, therefore, take them on record, and are exhibited as Exhs.3, 4, 5 and 6.

3. It is a suit for declaration and permanent injuction and damages plaintiff No.l is the owner in respect of agricultural land bearing Nos. 120/1, 2, 122/1. 119/1, 3, 4 and 118/2, 3 measuring 32.8 Acres while the plaintiff No.2 is the owner of agricultural land bearing Nos. 105/3, 4, 106/3, 4, 107/3, 107/4, ,116, 117 and ‑118/1, 4 measuring 64 Acres, both totalling 96 Acres and 8 ghuntas of land situated in Deh Gongki, Tapo Ghare, Taluka Mirpur Sakro, District Thatta, hereinafter referred to as the said land. By an agreement, dated 18‑8‑1980 the plaintiffs entered into an agreement of sale of the said agricultural land with defendant No. 1 at an agreed rate of Rs.5,000 per Acre and as such received Rs.50,000 as advance, further, agreeing to receive the balance of Rs. 4, 30, 000 before 31st December, 1980. On the same day a General Power of Attorney was executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No. 2 to do certain acts in respect of the said land. Both the agreements and the power of attorney were duly registered with the Sub‑Registrar, Karachi on the same day. It is alleged that defendant No. 2 in collusion with defendant No. 1 got the sale‑deed executed for Rs.2.40,000 instead of Rs.4,80,000 and got the same registered on 5th October, 1980. On coming to know of this collusive act on the part of the defendants the plaintiffs approached them but in vain; hence this suit was filed on ar‑4‑1980 It is alleged that the defendants failed tc pay the agreed amount to the plaintiffs,

3‑A. On reading the plaint and the power of attorney and the agreement for sale it is clear that the said land was agreed to be sold by the plaintiffs to defendant No.l for a total consideration of Ra.4,80,000 out of which a sum of Rs.50,000 was paid to the plaintiffs, as advance. The power of attorney is specified on the point that defendant No.2, as an attorney, was empowered to execute the sale‑deed in favour of defendant, in furtherance of the sale agreement registered on that very day and received the remaining balance amount. The sale‑deed has been executed in respect of the said land on favour of defendant No.l but for 50$ of the sale consideration which is in violation of the authory conferred on defendant No.2. The sale‑deed 5‑10‑1980 is, therefore, declared as null and void. It was agreed under the sale agreement that the payment of the remaining amount was to be made by 31‑12‑1980 for which purpose the power of attorney was executed. The period as stipulated in the agreement having expired, the power of attorney, dated 18‑8‑1980 is also declared void.

4. In so fart as the claim of Rs. 1 lac as damages is concerned although there is no evidence in rebuttal but no evidence has been produced by the plaintiff to prove that claim of damages. I decline to decree the said part of the claim made in prayer clause (c) of the plaint,

5. I 'also grant injunction as prayed ill' prayer clause (d). The suit is, therefore, decreed in terms stated above with costs.

H . B . T . ‑‑‑‑‑ Suit decreed.