Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115, 188, 237

Law: Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882

Section:

Law: Contract, Act, 1872

Section:

Tag Line: The transfer of suit property by General Attorney in favour of his sons without the express permission of the principal was unlawful when the alleged consideration against executed General Power of Attorney was not proved. Hence, the Impugned Judgment of the Appellate Court was set aside and that of the Trial Court was upheld.

1. Facts

• Petitioner (a woman, represented by legal heirs after death) filed a suit for declaration.
• She executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) on 24.09.2005 in favour of her real brother (Respondent No. 1) to manage her share in ancestral land.

She later discovered that the brother:

• had transferred the suit land to his own sons (Respondents No. 2 & 3), through a registered sale deed dated 30.01.2006, and mutation No. 15725 dated 27.06.2006.
• She cancelled the GPA on 13.04.2009 upon learning of misuse.
• She asserted that even if GPA was valid, the attorney could not lawfully transfer property to his own sons without her express permission and without consideration.

2. Defence of Respondents

• GPA gave full authority to transfer land.
• No express permission was needed.
• Claimed petitioner had received Rs. 2,000,000/- earlier as sale price:
• Rs. 200,000 + Rs. 1,000,000 allegedly acknowledged in an earlier unregistered GPA (25.10.2003).
• Rs. 800,000 paid through a receipt dated 09.09.2005 (Ex.D-5).
• Contended the petitioner was not parda-nashin but educated and well-travelled.

3. Procedural History

• Suit initially decreed → remanded by appellate court.
• After remand, Trial Court (18.11.2014) again decreed the suit.
• Appellate Court (08.05.2015) reversed and dismissed the suit.
• Petitioner filed Civil Revision, now allowed.

4. Issues for Determination

• Whether Respondent No. 1 lawfully transferred the property to his sons under the GPA?
• Whether any valid consideration passed to the petitioner?
• Whether the attorney required express permission to sell the property to his close relatives?
• Whether the appellate court misread evidence?

5. Findings of the High Court

A. GPA was valid but did not authorize sale to attorney’s sons without express permission

• GPA existed and conferred wide powers.
• But Respondent No. 1 admitted in cross-examination:

“It is correct that at the time of execution and completion of Mark E and Mark B, I did not obtain any permission from Farhat Iqbal.”

• This admission proved absence of express authorization from the principal.

Legal Principle

• An attorney cannot transfer the principal’s property to his own close relatives (including sons) without prior express permission, even under a general power of attorney.

Supreme Court Authority

• PLD 2025 SC 63 (Allah Bakhsh deceased v. Muhammad Riaz):

“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.”

• Held: Transfer by attorney to his sons without express permission is unlawful.

B. Respondents failed to prove that GPA was “coupled with consideration”

Reasons:

• GPA did not mention any payment of sale consideration.
• If consideration had already been paid, petitioner would have executed a sale deed, not a GPA.
• The amounts referred to in earlier documents were loans, not sale price:
• Unregistered GPA of 25.10.2003 (Ex.D-9) showed Rs. 1,000,000 and Rs. 200,000 as loans payable, not sale price.

Receipt (Ex.D-5) was: