' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The dispute between the parties relates to a plot measuring 7 Marlas bearing No,97-C situated at Satellite Town, Gujranwala. According to the case of the petitioners, this plot was allotted to Meraj Din, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1-A to 1-H, by the Housing and Physical Planning Department, in he year 1954; Meraj Din entered into an agreement to sell (Exh.P.1) with respondent No,2 Muhammad Saeed on 1-3-1961., for a total consideration of Rs,2,5000; he also executed, a receipt (Exh.P.2) in lieu of the consideration amount received, and also the power of attorney dated 1-3-1961 (Exh.P.3). Thereafter, respondent No,2 sold the said plot in favour of Muhammad Rafiq, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, through an agreement dated 20-3-1961 (Exh.P.5); the possession was delivered to him the same day and the power of attorney dated 20-3-1961 (Exh.P.8) was also executed in his favour. It is the case of the petitioners that since the above, their predecessor has been in possession of the suit property; the construction has been raised by him over the plot in the nature of a house and all the amenities such as electricity and the sui gas connections, were procured by him.
2. The legal heirs of respondent No,2 did not seriously contest the matter, but respondent No,1 Meraj Din filed the contesting written statement, denying the execution of the agreement to sell (Exh.P.1), the receipt of money (Exh.P.2) and also the power of attorney (Exh.P.3), which all documents were claimed to be the result of fraud etc. Issues were framed and the parties were put to trial. Instead of proving the documents in accordance with law, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners produced Muhammad Anwar as P.W.1 and himself appeared as P.W.2, he did not examine any marginal witness of the documents. The learned Civil Judge, however, decreed the suit vide judgment, and decree, dated 25-10-2000 holding, that Meraj Din has never applied to the Court for seeking the comparison of his signatures on the disputed documents with his admitted one, therefore, the presumption must go against him. Against the above, the contesting respondents preferred an appeal, which has been accepted on 5-1-2004 and the learned Appellate Court has held that the agreement to sell, the power of attorney and the receipt allegedly executed by Meraj Din in favour of respondent No,2 Muhammad Saeed, have not been proved on the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the documents are 30 years old and, therefore, those carries a presumption under Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. It is also submitted that all the amenities installed in the premises such as electricity and sui gas connections are in the name of the petitioners' predecessor; the petitioners are in occupation of the property since 1961, where they have raised the construction; the respondents claim that the petitioners are in occupation of the property as tenant under them since 1980 and have been paying the rent till 1991, but there is no proof about the creation of the tenancy and the payment of rent, because the petitioners had throughout been in occupation of the property as owners and not as tenants under anyone.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the power of attorney (Exh.P.3), which at the best, if the the an unregistered document, whereas if somebody has antedated the document to show it to be 30 years old, it would not presume to have been so executed under the said Article until and unless the age of the document is first established on the record. This nature of the evidence is conspicuously missing. As far as the power of attorney Exh.P.3 is concerned, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had purchased the property from Meraj Din on the basis of his power of attorney, but when the document is perused, which is an unregistered, it confers no authority to Muhammad Saeed to sell the property, because it does not contain any power of sale, therefore, any agreement to sell made by Muhammad Saeed in favour of the petitioners' predecessor on behalf of Meraj Din, on the basis of said power of attorney, has no legal sanctity. It is settled law that the power of attorney must be strictly construed and applied and in this behalf, the judgment reported Muhammad Yasin and another v. Dost Muhammad through Legal Heirs and another PLD 2002 SC 71 is relied upon, which lays down the law as follows:-- "It is also well-known principle of law that instruments of power of attorneys in pursuance whereof attorney is authorized to act on behalf of principal are to be construed strictly."
5. As far as the argument that the possession of the property is with the petitioners, as is established because of the amenities installed therein, suffice it to say that it is not proved on the record as to on what basis and the title, the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners had obtained those amenities, may be he might have misrepresented himself or in collusion with the department, got the same, but admittedly he never had any title document on the basis of which, those could be procured; he only possessed an alleged agreement to sell, which cannot be equated to a title instrument on account of which a person can claim to be an owner and get the amenities installed. For the submission that the respondents have failed to prove the status of the petitioners as a tenant, as alleged in the suit, it may be held that it is the petitioners, who have to stand on their own legs, rather to take the advantage of any weakness of the other side. From the record, it stands established that the property had been allotted in the name of Meraj Din since 1954 and the petitioners' predecessor has no private of contract with Meraj Din directly.
Undoubtedly, the petitioners' predecessor claims the purchase in his favour through respondent No,2, who as mentioned above, had no authority on behalf of Meraj Din to sell the property to him.
Besides, as mentioned earlier, the presumption of Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, in the facts and circumstances, cannot be raised as the petitioners have failed to prove the documents being that old.
' In the light of above, I do not find any merits in this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed.