Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 3774 2016 SLD 3774 2016 YLR 1567
Peshawar High Court
C.R. No. 472-P of 2013, decided on 23rd January, 2015. Date of hearing: 23rd January, 2015.
ABDUL LATIF KHAN, JUSTICE
Abdur Rahim Khan Jadoon for Petitioners. Akhtar Naveed and Muhammad Tariq Yousafzai for
Respondents.

AGHA RAZA AND anotherS

VS

. MST. TAMSEELA FAZIL AND 2 others

Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ----- -----S. 42-----Suit for declaration-----General power-of-attorney-----Mortgage deed-----Proof-----Procedure-----Witnesses of power-of-attorney who allegedly identified the executant of the same were neither relatives nor executant was known to them prior to attestation of document-----Beneficiary of document had to prove its contents-----Beneficiary of document was bound to produce evidence to the effect that document had validly been scribed and attested-----Sub-Registrar who made endorsement on the document ought to have been produced by the defendants-----Mere production of Registry Moharrir who was only custodian of record would not be sufficient to prove that executant had put her appearance before the Sub-Registrar and had given consent for execution and attestation of document-----General power-of-attorney had not properly been attested, any act done on the basis of such general power-of-attorney would be of no legal effect-----Time given in the mortgage deed was one month for payment of mortgaged money and on failure of return, defendant would become exclusive owner which was against the spirit of law-----No suit for foreclosure had been filed by the mortgagee-----Mortgagee, in circumstances, had no right to claim the ownership of suit property-----Payment of consideration had not been proved nor purpose of execution of alleged mortgage-deed had been mentioned-----Transaction was collusively made in order to deprive the legal heirs of principal/owner from getting their shares out of her legacy-----Alleged attorney had to take special permission from the principal for mortgage/transfer of property in favour of his wife as there existed fiduciary relation between them-----No such transfer could be effected without permission from principal-----Both general power-of-attorney and mortgage-deed were executed on one and the same day-----If foundation was baseless then superstructure, if any raised thereupon, would crumble down-----Findings recorded by the Appellate Court were modified and both the general power-of-attorney and mortgage-deed were annulled in toto-----Legal heirs of the executant of said documents would be…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492