Law: Contract Act, 1872

Section: 214,215,218,226,188

Law: Contract Act, 1872

Section: 214,215,218,226,188

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.VI,R.8,115

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 41

(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)------Ss. 214, 215, 218 & 226---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.41 ---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Contention of plaintiff was that sale mutation attested by plaintiff's attorney in favour of defendant was without his permission; that attorney had fraudulently obtained registered power of attorney from plaintiff and sold the suit-land at a price less than its purchase price and that attorney had not paid him sale price of suit land---Defendant's plea was that suit was not maintainable; that he was transferee of suit-land in good faith for valuable consideration and that plaintiff had purchased suit-land through pre-emption suit, wherein inflated price was given to protect sale from pre-emption---Validity---Plaintiff had cancelled power of his attorney just after six days of sanctioning of mutation and filing of present suit---Lamberdar and Naib Tehsildar had deposed that plaintiff's attorney had received the present sale price of suit-land from defendant---According to deposition of plaintiff's son, his father (plaintiff) was in need of money; someone in need of money would be expected to sell his assets even at lesser rates---Attorney once appointed would be as good as principal for purposes of transaction mentioned in his power of attorney---Evidence on record showed that plaintiff at the relevant time was in good health with sound eyesight---Plaintiff had filed suit himself and remained alive for one year thereafter---Plaintiff had given power of attorney to his attorney with his free consent, which was duly registered and was not result of fraud or forgery---Power of attorney once proved to have been issued validly by a principal, then powers exercised by attorney would also be valid till power of attorney remained in field---Plaintiff's attorney was holding powers at time of suit sale, which he had validly exercised, thus, attorney was not required to get further permission from plaintiff---Sale transaction once completed would be deemed to be within knowledge and with permission of plaintiff/principal and legal and lawful---Defendant being a bona…

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