1. ' This second appeal has been lodged against the judgment and decree dated 1-1-1980 passed by the District Judge, Poonch, whereby he, affirming the judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge, Rawalakot dated 30-4-1978, dismissed the appeal of the appellant filed against the same. The brief facts of the case are that Akbar Din, appellant, brought a suit for possession of land measuring 12 Kanals and 1 Marlas out of survey Nos, 605 and 607, situate in village Horna Maira, Tehsil Rawalakot, District Poonch, against Muhammad Afsar Khan whose legal representatives are respondents 1 to 12 and Sub. Feroze Khan, respondent No,. 13, in the Court of Sub-Judge, Rawalakot. The case of the plaintiff was that he had purchased the aforementioned land from its owners, Ali Hussain and Mst.
2. Safira Jan, for a consideration of Rs, 500 through a registered sale-deed dated 31-8-1971 and that said Muhammad Afsar Khan deceased and respondent No,. 13 had unlawfully and forcibly occupied the same in the month of June, 1965. The defence of the defendants in the said suit taken in the written statement was that they were in possession of the suit land as owners on the basis of its registered sale-deed dated 10-5-1965 executed by its owners in their favour. The trial Court, after framing necessary issues and recording evidence produced by the parties, came to the conclusion that before the execution of the sale-deed of the suit land in favour of the appellant, the suit land already stood lawfully transferred in the name of Muhammad Afsar Khan, deceased and Subedar Feroze Khan, by virtue of duly executed sale-deed and consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant vide its judgment and decree dated 30-4-1978. The appellant went in appeal against the said judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge but was not successful as the same was also dismissed by the District Judge by his judgment and decree under appeal. No,w, the appellant has come up in second appeal before this Court against the said judgment and decree of the District Judge.
3. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts below have wrongly held the suit land to be in the ownership of Muhammad Afsar Khan deceased and Feroze Khan respondents, at the time of execution of the sale-deed of the same in favour of the appellant. In this connection, it has been contended that, firstly, it is fully proved from the evidence that Mst.
4. Safira Jan had never executed the power of attorney in favour of Muhammad Amir Khan, authorising him to sell her share in the suit land and to execute the sale-deed in respect thereof and to present the same for registration. Secondly, even if it is assumed that such a power of attorney was duly executed, still the sale-deed executed and registered on its basis in favour of Muhammad Afsar Khan deceased and Subedar Feroze Khan, respondent, was not legal and valid inasmuch as such a power of attorney was not duly authenticated by the Sub-Registrar as required under section 32 of the Registration Act. It is, thus, further contended that the sale-deed of the suit land being invalid, its subsequent sale in the name of the appellant, was not lawful and operative thereby entitling him to the grant of decree for possession as prayed by him in his suit. I do not find much force in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and am of the opinion that from the record it is fully proved that a lawful and effective sale-deed was brought into existence transferring the rights and interests in the suit land to Muhammad Afsar Khan and Subedar Feroze Khan, respondent. It was for the appellant to prove that the power of attorney alleged to have been executed by Mst. Safira Jan in favour of Muhammad Afsar Khan, was a forged document having not been executed by the said executant, but there is very scanty and unreliable evidence brought on the record by the appellant to substantiate his above allegation. The only witness produced to prove the aforesaid document to be a forgery was Mst.Safira Jan who had denied the execution of the power of attorney under consideration, in favour of Muhammad Amir Khan. Her bare statement cannot be made the basis of a finding regarding the said document to be fake and forged one especially in view of the fact that she is closely related to the appellant for which reason her evidence all the more becomes unworthy of any reliance and credibility. As against this evidence, the respondents have examined Muhammad Amir Khan and Ghulam Hussain to prove the execution of power of attorney under discussion. Muhammad Amir Khan has stated that Mst. Safira Jan had executed the power of attorney in his favour by which he was authorised to sell her share in the suit land and to execute the sale-deed on her behalf for the purpose, whereas Ghulam Hussain, as an attesting witness of the power of attorney, had also identified the executant before the Sub-Registrar at the time of its registration. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses as Muhammad Amir Khan is brother-in-law of Mst.
5. Safira Jan who is not expected to have a forged document against the interest of the said executant, whereas Ghulam Hussain is also a respectable person of the locality being Chairman of the Union Council Chikar whose being a party to the forgery of a document, is a thing not believable in the circumstances of the case. Moreover, this document has been duly registered by the Sub-Registrar concerned which fact also lends support to its having been executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed. In view of the aforementioned evidence and nature of its credibility, the trial Court had rightly held the suit land to be belonging to the respondents.
6. ' The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that due to lack of authentication by the Sub-Registrar on the power of attorney executed by Mst. Safira Jan in favour of Muhammad Amir Khan, the sale-deed of the suit land executed by the attorney named in the said power of attorney is not lawful in view of the provisions of section 32 of the Registration Act, is also devoid of any force. It is my considered view that the power of attorney in question did not require any authentication as contemplated by the aforesaid section of the Registration Act because the same is only necessary where the power of attorney authorises a person to present the document executed by its executant for registration in the registration office. But in the present case, the executant of the powers of attorney in question conferred on the attorney named therein the powers to sell the suit land and to execute the document to achieve that purpose. This power of attorney was not given for the purpose of presenting the sale deed of the suit land but, as stated above, it had authorised the attorney to effect the sale of the suit land on behalf of its executant, namely, Mst. Safira Jan. In this view of the matter, the attorney in this case himself became the actual executant of the sale-deed and, as such, he did not need any separate power of attorney for enabling him to present the sale-deed for registration in terms of section 32 of the Registration Act which was not attracted at all for making the sale-deed a valid document transferring the interests to the respondents in the suit land. In my this view I am supported by PLD 1968 Kar. 765 and AIR 1924 All.
7. 148.
8. ' Apart from the above legal position, the provisions of section 32 of the Registration Act were not applicable in the present case for yet another reason. The power of attorney duly authenticated under the aforesaid law is meant to enable the attorney to present the document for registration on behalf of its executant. In this case, there were two executants of the sale-deed of the suit land in question and, as such, it was unnecessary for all the executants to present the same for registration and presentation by any one of them was sufficient compliance with the provisions of the relevant law. This being the case, Muhammad Amir Khan, attorney of Mst. Safira Jan was not compulsorily required to present the sale-deed of the suit land for registration to the registration office and the presentation by the other executant, namely Ali Hussain, was sufficient for the purpose. Therefore even if Muhammad Amir Khan, attorney needed any power of attorney from its executant duly authenticated as visualised by section 32 of the Registration Act, still the non- existence of such a power of attorney in his favour did not render the sale-deed of the suit land in favour of the respondents invalid inasmuch as its presentation for registration by Ali Hussain executant was quite sufficient to bestow the validity on the sale-deed. In fact, it was Ali Hussain executant who had presented the said document before the Sub-Registrar for registration as is apparent from the endorsement made on it by the Sub-Registrar.
9. For the reasons stated above, I find no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs.