Law: Contract, Act, 1872

Section: 188, 214

Law: Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882

Section: 2

(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)-------Ss. 188 & 214---Powers-of-Attorney Act (VII of 1882), S. 2---Principal-agent relationship---General power of attorney---Transfer of property by the attorney in favour of his sons---Holder of a general power of attorney must obtain special permission from the principal when alienating the principal's property, either in his own favor or in the name of his relatives---Attorney would require prior permission, approval and consent of the principal when he wants to transfer the property in the name of his close relatives.Maqsood Ahmad and others v. Salman Ali PLD 2003 SC 31 and Jamil Akhtar and others v. Las Baba and others PLD 2003 SC 494 ref.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 185---Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court---Scope---Concurrent findings of Courts below---Normally, the Supreme Court does not interfere in the concurrent findings (of Courts below) unless those are perverse, arbitrary, fanciful or capricious. JUDGMENT:SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE:---.---Through this petition, the petitioners have called in question the judgment dated 08.03.2023 ("Impugned Judgment") passed by the Lahore High Court ("the High Court") in Civil Revision No.20993 of 2021 whereby the Revision Application was dismissed.2. The brief facts are that Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 (Manzoor Hussain, Muhammad Siddique, and Muhammad Rafique, respectively) filed a civil suit for declaration, specific performance, and injunction, asserting that Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (Sellers) were the owners of 55 kanals of land in Dhool Bala, Sahiwal, District Sargodha (the suit land). Respondents Nos.1 and 2 sold the suit land to Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, who are real brothers, for a sum of Rs. 24,000/- by means of an oral agreement. After taking possession from the sellers, Respondents Nos. 3-5 and Petitioners Nos. 1-2 jointly cultivated the land. It is alleged that according to conditions of oral agreement, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were bound to transfer the suit land to Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 according to their respective shares. It has been alleged that Petitioner No. 1 prepared a…