' TANVIR AHMAD KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 28-1-2003 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment dismissed the R.S.A. Filed by the petitioner maintaining the earlier determination of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 6-7-1994 whereby he reversed the findings of the learned Civil Judge, Daska.
2. Facts briefly are that respondent Mst. Muhammad Jan and Mst. Umar Hassan filed a declaratory suit with permanent injunction on 29-3-1989 taking exception to the sale-deed, dated 2-4-1988 as having been executed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. In the said suit both these ladies also arrayed Rana Ghulam Sabir as defendant who was subsequently transposed as plaintiff on 10-6-1990 and amended plaint was filed accordingly. It was averred in the plaint that they had not executed any general power-of-attorney in favour of Faiz Muhammadand Naik Alam respondents so as to sell their landed property to the petitioners.
3. The suit was resisted by the petitioners who claimed to be the bona fide purchasers of the property. Out of the contradictory pleadings of the parties issues were framed. The parties led their evidence and the learned Civil Judge, Daska through his judgment, dated 29-7-1991 dismissed the suit with special costs. An exception was taken by the respondents to the judgment of the learned trial Court through Civil Appeal No, 151 of 1993 by the respondents. Another appeal bearing No,150 of 1993 was filed against the imposition of special costs of Rs,5,000. The learned Additional District Judge, Daska after scanning the entire evidence brought on record set aside the finding of the learned trial Court and decreed the suit declaring the disputed sale-deed being illegal, void, collusive and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs/respondents. The petitioners filed R.S.A.
Which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge maintaining the earlier determination of the First Appellate Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the patties and have gone through the evidence brought on record by the parties with the assistance of the learned counsel.
5. The crucial point in this case is whether Rana Ghulam Sabir was having any authority from his mother and sister, namely, Mst. Muhammad Jan and her daughter Mst. Umar Hassan Akhtar to further delegate the authority to Faiz Muhammad and Naik Alam. It is reflected that at no time the mother and sister authorized said Ghulam Sabir to appoint any other person as an attorney.
Admittedly, they appointed Ghulam Sabir as their attorney on 27-2-1978. He was not authorised to appoint Faiz Ahmad and Naik Alam as general attorney on the basis of the said authorization which he did on 6-12-1981. It is also to be appreciated that no Court has held that the mother and sister had authorised Rana Ghulam Sabir to further delegate the power. Mere fact that she was informed regarding the transaction would not clothe/give any sanctity to the power-of-attorney executed in favour of Faiz Muhammad and Naik Alam with any better status.The learned. Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has given cogent reasons in dismissing the R.S.A. And has given sound reasons for accepting the determination of the learned First Appellate Court whereby declaratory suit filed by the respondent was decreed. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the determination of the learned Single Judge which is as under:--- "7. A perusal of the above evidence would show that neither the said attorneys nor the said vendees had seen the said power-ofattorney, dated 27-2-1978 with reference whereof the power- ofattorney Exh. D-3 was executed by respondent No,3.
8. Now coming to the said circumstances quoted by the learned trial Court, so far as the admission of respondent No,1 as P.W.3 that she had been told by respondent No,3 that the said attorneys had been appointed is concerned, nothing turns on the same. Learned counsel for the appellants had taken me through the statement of Mst. Muhammad Jan respondent No,3 as P.W.3. It finds that she had specifically stated that she had never authorized Ghulam Sabir, her son to sell the land and that neither she nor her daughter had authorized respondent No,3 to appoint any other person as an attorney. In view of the statement-the mere fact that she was informed that the said respondent No,3 had appointed the said attorneys would be of no avail to the appellants. So far as the question of thumb-impression of the, respondent No,1 on the sale-deed is concerned. She had denied that she had thumb-marked any sale-deed. Now the said sale-deed is Exh.D.I. On the last page the thumb impressions of Mst. Muhammad Jan appeared as witness. However, at the time of registration neither her thumb impressions were obtained nor she appears to have presented herself. In view of the said specific statement of respondent No,1 it was necessary for the appellants to have proved the document formally by producing the other marginal witnesses. None of the said witnesses had been produced."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment. This petition is therefore, dismissed. .