1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 19-3-1984 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners' Regular Second Appeal arising out of a land/gift case, was dismissed.
2. Muhammad Nawaz petitioner No. 1 acting on a purported power of attorney given to him by Shahbaz Khan, the original owner of the land, made gift of the suit-land to his own two sons, Muhammad Sheraz and Muhammad Iqbal, petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. Mst. Ismat Jan respondent, sister of Muhammad Nawaz, filed a wait seeking remedy against her being deprived of her share ('tom the suit property which admittedly belonged to her father Shahbaz Khan. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit. But the learned First Appellate Court decreed it on the ground that the alleged power of attorney which was the basis of the gift made by Muhammad Nawaz, had not been legally proved to have been executed by Shahbaz Khan. The petitioners' Second Appeal in the High Court met the same result, the first appellate judgment was affirmed, therefore, they have now sought leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel in support of the two pleas regarding proof of the authenticity and execution of the power of attorney as also on the question of limitation. The learned Judge in the High Court made the following observation with regard to the power of attorney:- "Having given anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after carefully perusing the record, I am inclined to hold that the document Exh. D/4 does not purport to have been executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Pakistani Counsel or Vice-counsel or representative of the Central Government."
4. The alleged executant namely, Shahbaz Khan was at the relevant time .Residing in Indonesia that is why the High Court had to make observation with regard to authentication. The findings and reasons given by the learned Courts below on lack of proof of the document regarding its authenticity and execution, are unexceptionable. On the question of limitation also the gift being void itself the suit, it was held by the learned Courts below, was not barred by limitation. The learned counsel did not controvert this point. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to make any further comment in this behalf. It is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal the same accordingly is refused.