Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 3473 2003 SLD 3473 2003 ITR 494
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1716 of 2001, decided on 16ti January, 2003.
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, ACTG. C.J ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, JJ
Hafiz Saeed Ahmed Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Sardar Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents.

JAMIL AKHTAR and others

VS

LAS BABA and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-- ---Ss. 12 & 27---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.41---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss. 18 & 49---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell property- --Vendor entered into agreement to sell with plaintiff and also executed a registered power of attorney to his favour authorising him to sell land---Vendor later on sold land in favour of vendees---Plaintiff filed suit, which was contested by subsequent vendees claiming to be bona fide transferees for consideration and without notice of plaintiff's rights--­Validity---Both deeds had been executed on the same date---Subsequent vendees could at most in exercise of due diligence make a probe either into Revenue Record or Registration Office---Property in Revenue Record was still in the name of vendor---Registered deed, if scrutinized, would not have provided any opportunity to subsequent vendees to be alert as same was a simple general power of attorney in favour of plaintiff---Real document to put subsequent vendees on alert was agreement to sell, which had never been registered---Had the parties executed only one document and all contents of both documents been mentioned in one document, which was registered as well, then there had been every occasion for subsequent vendees to have become alert of rights of plaintiff-agent---Registered power of attorney was silent that principal had allowed agent-plaintiff to get property transferred in his own name---Subsequent vendees in such circumstances, despite exercise of due diligence, could not have known or supposed to have known about existence of any agreement to sell' between original vendor and plaintiff--­Subsequent vendees were, thus, bona tide purchasers for consideration and without notice within contemplation of S.27 of Specific Relief Act, 1877--­No decree for specific performance could be granted in favour of plaintiff. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----Ss. 188 & 214---Power of Attorney Act (VII of 1882), S.2---Agent--­Transfer of principal's property---Duty of agent---Appointment of a general attorney is a matter of routine as well as requirement of principal and is never indicative by…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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