Foreign notarised power of attorney attracts Evidence Act presumption; revisional court may correct findings ignoring material admissions.

Section 85 of the Evidence Act extends the presumption of due execution to a power of attorney authenticated by a notary public in another country, and the provision is not limited to notaries appointed under the domestic Notaries Act. On the landlord-tenant issue, revisional interference was justified because the trial court had ignored material admissions and substantial evidence bearing on the parties' relationship; a finding based on only part of the evidence was treated as legally unsustainable. The eviction decrees were sustained, with time granted only for vacating possession.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a power of attorney authenticated by a notary public in another country attracts the statutory presumption of due execution under Section 85 of the Evidence Act. (ii) Whether the revisional court was justified in reversing the trial court's finding on the existence of the landlord and tenant relationship.

Issue (i): Whether a power of attorney authenticated by a notary public in another country attracts the statutory presumption of due execution under Section 85 of the Evidence Act.

Analysis: The statutory presumption is attached to documents purporting to be executed before or authenticated by a notary public, and the provision is not confined to notaries appointed or recognised under the local Notaries Act. The reasoning accepted that importing the limitations of the Notaries Act into Section 85 would unduly restrict the operation of the evidentiary presumption and create unnecessary difficulties in the acceptance of foreign-authenticated documents.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 85 applies to documents authenticated by notaries public of other countries, and the objection to the foreign notarisation failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional court was justified in reversing the trial court's finding on the existence of the landlord and tenant relationship.

Analysis: The revisional court interfered because the trial court had ignored material admissions and substantial evidence bearing on the relationship between the parties. A finding based on only part of the evidence and disregarding decisive material was treated as not according to law, and the revisional interference was held to be justified on that footing.

Conclusion: The revisional court was justified in setting aside the trial court's finding and decreeing the suits.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed on both substantive grounds and the eviction decrees were sustained, with time granted only for vacating possession.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 85 of the Evidence Act is not confined to notarisation by notaries appointed under the domestic Notaries Act and extends to documents authenticated by notaries public of other countries.

---