| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 1427 2012 SLD 1427 2012 SCMR 380 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 343 of 2007, decision dated: 30-11-2011 (On appeal from the judgment dated 13-10-2006 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R. No.1002 of 2005)
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No. 343 of 2007, decision dated: 30-11-2011 (On appeal from the judgment dated 13-10-2006 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R. No.1002 of 2005)
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF
VS
Mst. AZRA PARVEEN
Law:
Section:
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 12---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether High Court had appreciated relevant law and evidence on record in its correct perspective while allowing revision petition filed by respondent. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 202---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Power of attorney---Authority coupled with interest---Plaintiff sought specific performance of agreement to sell on the ground that after receipt of earnest money, defendant executed power of attorney in his favour---Defendant resisted the suit on the ground that amount received by him from plaintiff was a loan and not part payment of sale consideration---Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the same---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction restored and decree passed by Trial Court and set aside that of Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Finding of High Court was correct and amount so received could not be given a colour of loan when preponderance of evidence on record did not tend to support it---Even power of attorney and agreement to sell, execution of which was established through aboveboard evidence, left no foothold for defendant to stand up and deny execution of the same with his chin up, as power of attorney was executed on receipt of sale consideration---Subject matter of agency was coupled with an interest of agent in it---Purpose behind creating the agency was to secure and protect an interest accruing to plaintiff upon payment of amount to defendant---Supreme Court declined to agree that no transfer could be made by donee of power of attorney without obtaining consent of its donor---Present was a case of authority coupled with an interest falling within the purview of S.202 of Contract Act, 1872---Judgment and decree passed by High Court was free from any taint of misreading or non-reading of evidence or any other error which could be called jurisdictional---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the and decree passed by High Court---Appeal was dismissed.…
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