Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 1045 2022 SLD 1045 2022 SCMR 1068
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 221 of 2018, decision Dated: 15th September, 2021, Date of hearing: 15th September, 2021 (Against the judgment Dated 28.11.2017 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in R.S.A. No. 8 of 1998)
MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE, MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE, QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Moulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Ex parte for
Respondent Nos. 1 - 7. Anwar Mobin Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents Nos.8-10.

HAQ NAWAZ AND OTHErs

VS

BANARAS AND OTHERS

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 215---Power of Attorney---Purported agent transferring property to his own sons without consent of principal---Illiterate village and pardanasheen lady deprived of her immoveable property---Father of plaintiffs, acting as an attorney for an old illiterate village lady, transferred her land (suit land) to the plaintiffs through a purported oral sale mutation---Legality---Purported vendor was an old illiterate village dweller, with ill health; she was not able to even move on her own, and had been carried to the Registrar’s office for the execution of the power of attorney by someone---Plaintiffs’ father i.e. the purported attorney, while deposing before the Trial Court, also has not denied the suggestion that she was a pardanashin lady; it was not even pleaded that she received any independent advice and/or that contents of the power of attorney were read over and explained to her before she executed it---Stance of the lady throughout had been that she appointed the plaintiffs’ father, who was her tenant in occupation, as her attorney, merely to manage the affairs of her land and for nothing more, and therefore, given the status of the lady, it was imperative for the plaintiffs to have demonstrated and proved that at the time of the execution of the power of attorney, she was fully conscious of the fact that the document also contained power to sell and that the entire document was read out and explained to her fully and truly, and further that she executed it under an independent advice---Plaintiffs also had to prove that the lady was fully aware and conscious of the consequences and implications of executing the said document---However neither did they prove, nor even pleaded any of it, therefore, it could not be held that plaintiffs’ father was in fact authorized by the lady to sell the suit land---Attorney could not lawfully make transfer of a property under agency in his own name, or for his benefit, or in favour of his associates, without explicit consent of the principal, and in the event he did so, the principal, under the mandate of section 215 of the Contract Act, 1872 had a right to repudiate such…
đź”’
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