1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.462 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 280 OF 2010 IN SA/462/2010 Shri Rafiq Yoonusmiya Janjirkar, .. Appellant. Vs. Smt Fatima Mahamad Sharif Janjirkar and ors .. Respondents. Mrs Teja Katdare, for the appellant. Mr Rajeev Patil i/b Ms Priyanka S Thakur, for respondent nos 1 to 5. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 13/12/2010. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for possession of the suit property. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs, through their power of attorney. The plaintiffs are residents of South Africa, and hence they executed power of attorney in favour of one Mohammed Sharif Goolam Mohidin Janjirkar, who on their behalf, instituted the suit and contested the same. 3. The judgments of the courts below are assailed by learned counsel for the appellant solely on the ground that the power of attorney was not executed by following the due procedure under law. In other words, the power of attorney is not a legally executed T 2 document and, therefore, Janjirkar was not entitled to institute and contest the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs. It appears that initially the power of attorney at Exhibit-55 was executed and since it was objected to by the appellant the power of attorney at Exhibit-56 was produced on record. My attention was invited to the power of attorney and the other documents which were taken on record as Exhibit-56 collectively to contend that the dates of the authentication certificate and the power of attorney do not tally. I have perused photocopy of the documents at Exhibit-56. It appears that the Registrar of the High Court, Cape Town, South Africa on 30.9.2003 authenticated signature of the Commissioner of Oaths, namely, Ruknodien Dadarker, in whose presence all the plaintiffs signed and executed the power of attorney. It is true that though the authentication certificate issued by the Commissioner of Oaths is dated 30.9.2003 it mentions that the Commissioner of Oaths had seen the plaintiffs signing the documents on 15.3.2003 and that the date of execution of the power of attorney is 30.9.2003. In view thereof, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner of Oaths could not have executed the power of attorney on 30.9.2003 when the authentication certificate clearly shows that all the plaintiffs signed before him on 15.9.2003. In my opinion, this would not help the appellant to 3 contend that the power of attorney is not an authenticate/legal document. The Commissioner of Oaths has attested the signatures on the power of attorney. Merely because the date of execution of the power of attorney is 30th September, 2003, that does not mean the plaintiffs did not sign in his presence. The photocopies of the documents (Exhibit-56) also clearly show that signature of the Commissioner of Oaths on the authentication certificate and on the power of attorney is identical and cannot be doubted. Moreover, both the courts below, after having considered the provisions of the Registration Act and of the Evidence Act, rightly rejected the contentions urged on behalf of the defendant challenging the execution of the power of attorney. Further, it is pertinent to note that none of the plaintiffs, who executed the power of attorney, has made any grievance about the power of attorney. Considering that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below and as I find that there is sufficient material on record to sustain those findings and considering that no substantial question of law is either involved or raised in this appeal, it deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly. The civil application also stands disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) 4