JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. Defendant No. 1-Dev Raj, having lost before both the Courts below, has approached this Court through the present regular second appeal.
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners and in proprietary possession in equal shares of the land measuring 38 kanals 5 marlas being half share of the total land measuring 76 kanals 10 marlas and that the sale of the suit land vide sale deed dated June 24, 1982 in favour of defendant No. 1 on behalf of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is illegal and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs.
2. The facts which emerge from the record show that the land in dispute was originally owned by one Amir Hassan. The aforesaid Amir Hassan expired on October 30, 1982. At the time of death of Amir Hassan, Dev Raj was tenant on the disputed land. After the death of Amir Hassan, sale deed dated June 24. 1982 was executed by defendants Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Natho Begum and Smt. Musarrat Begum, his legal representatives. On the basis of the aforesaid sale deed, defendant No. 1 started proclaiming that he has become owner of the suit land.
3. The suit was field by the plaintiffs claiming that they had purchased the suit land from Amir Hassan vide registered sale deed dated July 10, 1980. Ex. P2. During his life time, the said sale deed was executed by Daud Ali. General Attorney of Amir Hassan. The General Power of Attorney dated December 15, 1978 in favour of Daud Ali is available on record as Ex. P3. On the basis of the earlier sale deed, the plaintiffs claimed that they had already acquired title over the suit property, therefore, any subsequent sale after death of Amir Hassan by his legal representatives to defendant No. 1 was wholly illegal and did not confer any title upon him. It was consequently claimed that the aforesaid sale deed was invalid and is not binding on the rights of the parties.
4. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1. He denied the existence of any sale deed dated July 10, 1980 in favour of the plaintiffs. He also denied that any valid General Power of Attorney had been executed by Amir Hassan in favour of Daud Ali on December 15. 1978. He also claimed that since there was no entry in the revenue record, therefore, he was purchaser of the suit land for consideration and as such was protected in law.
5. The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence available on the record upheld the existence and validity of General Power of Attorney, Ex. P3 dated December 15. 1978 in favour of Daud Ali by Amir Hassan. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, it was further held that the aforesaid Daud Ali had duly executed sale deed dated July 10. 1980 in favour of the plaintiffs selling the aforesaid land. Consequently, it was held that the plaintiffs having acquired title over the suit land prior to death of Amir Hassan, his legal representatives after his death, could not have sold the same to defendant No. 1. nor defendant No. 1 could be taken to have acquired any right or title over the property through sale deed dated June 24, 1982 Ex. D1. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court.
6. Defendant No. 1 took up the matter in appeal.
7. The first Appellate Court reappraised the entire evidence. On the basis of such reappraisal, the first appellate Court came to similar conclusions as had been arrived at by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal field by him.
8. Defendant No. 1 has now chosen to approach this Court by was of the present regular second appeal.
9. I have heard Shri S.S. Dinarpur and with his assistance have also gone through the record of the case.
10. Shri Dinarpur has vehemently argued that the General Power of Attorney. Ex.P. 3 was not duly shown to be executed by Amir Hassan in favour of Daud Ali. therefore, it could not be taken that Daud Ali had executed any valid sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. It has further been argued by the learned Counsel that in any case the aforesaid sale deed was not shown to be entered into the revenue record and, therefore, the defendant No. 1 had purchased the said land on June 24. 1982 from the legal representatives of Amir Hassan and in these circumstances he was to be treated as a bona fide purchaser without any notice. Consequently, he claimed that defendant No. 1 was duly protected in law.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel but find myself unable to agree with the same.
12. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that Amir Hassan during his life time had executed the General Power of Attorney dated December 15, 1978 Ex. P3 in favour of Daud Ali. The aforesaid General Power of Attorney has been proved by cogent evidence. Daud Ali has also appeared in the witness box as PW5. The said document has also been proved by the Registration Clerk Phool Singh who has appeared as PW4. Learned Courts below have also noticed that Dev Raj, appellant in his examination-in-chief has himself admitted that Amir Hassan being owner of land had appointed Daud Ali as his attorney. In view of the aforesaid evidence or, record, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be had to be erroneous in any manner. Thus, it has to be held that Daud Ali while acting as duly appointed attorney of Amir Hassan executed a valid sale deed on July 10, 1980, Ex. P2 in favour of the plaintiffs, conveying the title thereof.
13. The next argument of the learned Counsel is also without any basis. It is not in dispute that defendant No. 1 was tenant over the suit land. In these circumstances, being in possession of the suit land as tenant, he was supposed to take caution while purchasing the suit land from the legal representatives of Amir Hassan on June 24. 1982. The sale deed Ex. P2 was executed more than one and a half years prior to the death of Amir Hassan. In these circumstances, it is unbelievable that defendant No. 1 was not aware of the existence and execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs.
14. Defendant No. 1 cannot claim any right qua the plaintiffs, if at all. he has to seek his remedies against the legal representatives of Amir Hassan.
15. No other point has been urged.
16. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law. arises in the present appeal.
In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.