Law: Contract Act, 1872

Section: 214,215

summary Court has dismissed a revision petition challenging a judgment that cancelled a General Power of Attorney and a gift mutation. The court held that the gift was not validly proved and the attorney\'s actions were not in the best interest of the principal. The court found that the General Power of Attorney was executed for management and representation purposes, not for gifting property. The alleged gift was not proved through cogent evidence, and its essential ingredients were missing. The attorney\'s fiduciary duty required obtaining informed consent from the principal for the gift.   This revision petition challenged concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts which had cancelled a General Power of Attorney (1991) and a gift mutation (1992) in favour of the petitioners and upheld the inheritance rights of the respondent (a female legal heir). The respondent claimed she was an illiterate parda-nasheen woman who unknowingly signed a power of attorney that was later misused to illegally transfer her inherited share through an alleged gift mutation in favour of her brothers. She sought declaration, cancellation, and possession. The petitioners argued that: The GPA and gift mutation were validly executed The gift was made with consent and knowledge The suit was time-barred The transaction was supported by revenue record entries The Courts below found: No valid gift (hiba) was proved (no declaration, acceptance, or delivery of possession) The GPA was meant for management/litigation, not alienation The transaction was fraudulent and without informed consent Mutation is only a revenue entry, not title transfer Limitation and estoppel do not apply between co-heirs in inheritance disputes The High Court upheld these findings and dismissed the revision petition. Sections / Laws Used General Legal Principles (not specific statutory sections): Principles of Islamic law of gift (Hiba) Contract Act, 1872 Section 214 – Agent’s duty to communicate with principal Section 215 – Agent dealing on own account requires consent Civil Procedure / Revenue Law Principles: Mutation law principle (revenue entry ≠ ownership) Principles of…