' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- On 5-6-2000 the respondents Nos.l and 2 filed a suit against the petitioners and respondent No.3. In the plaint, it was stated that the suit-land is owned by the said plaintiffs while petitioner No.l has been appointed as an attorney to pursue several cases going on about the said land. It is now revealed that the petitioner No.l has got executed a registered power of attorney dated 13-6-1987. They insisted that the petitioner No.l was never conferred any powers to alienate. It further revealed that acting under the said document, the petitioner No.l has transferred the land to his son-in-law i.e. Petitioner No.2 vide Mutation No. 102 attested on 18-1- 2000. The said transaction was also stated to be illegal and void as they never gifted the land to the said son-in-law of the petitioner No.l. A declaration was sought accordingly. The petitioners filed a written statement. The plea taken was that the plaintiff offered the petitioner No.l that if he pays some amount and pursue the cases at his own expenses then after the decision he may transfer it to anyone. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 20-5-2000. A learned A.D.J., Ferozwala, allowed the first appeal filed by the plaintiffs and decreed their suit on 16-1-2006.
2. Learned counsel lor the petitioners contends that the execution of the power of attorney stands proved and the learned A.D.J. Has acted without lawful authority while passing the impugned judgment and decree On the sole ground that the gift was made by the attorney without consulting the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plairitiffs-respondents supports - , the impugned judgment and decree with reference to the case of Mst. Shumal Begum v. Mst. Gulzar Begum and 3 others (1994 SCM R 818).
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. The power of attorney was produced as Exh.D.l and has been sought to be proved by producing Haji Muhammad Waris who has identified the signatures of a marginal witness, namely, Ch. Khalid Mahmood, Advocate while Amanat Ali D.W.4 has stated that the document was written by Haji Siddique deceased. On the other hand, the respondent No.l Maalik appeared as P.W.2 and he stated that his thumb impressions were obtained on a plain paper. Having examined the said evidence, to my mind, the execution of the document has not been proved and further there is no evidence on record that the document was read over and explained to the executants.
4. Be that as it may, on the basis of this power of attorney, the petitioner No. 1 proceeded to gift away the land to his son- in-law Muhammad Amin-petitioner No.2 vide mutation Exh.D.2. There is not even an allegation that the plaintiffs ever intended to gift the land to the petitioner No.2 or that they made a declaration of gift and transferred possession thereunder. The said judgment in the case of Mst, Shumal Begum fully supports the -impugned judgment of the learned A.D.J. There is nothing in the power of attorney that the plaintiffs intended to make a gift to the said petitioner No.2 and that they had directed the petitioner No.l to do so.
5. So far as the said plea of the petitioner No.l that the authority was coupled with interest, I do not find any evidence of payment of any consideration to the plaintiffs and further P.W.2 Maalik respondent categorically stated that he did not receive any consideration. He was cross-examined at length. Not a single question was put to him as to whether any consideration, and if So the amount thereof, was .Paid . By the petitioner No.l and received by any of the plaintiffs. The civil is dismissed but without any orders as to costs.