Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 3162 2007 SLD 3162 2007 CLC 500
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 23 of 2003, decided on 12th December, 2006.
MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J

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

FIRDOS SHAH--Applicant

VS

Mst. MEMOONA BIBI

Law:

Section:

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and perpetual injunction---Predecessor of plaintiffs executed power-of-attorney in favour of his brother, predecessor of defendants for purpose of management and disposal of his property---Predecessor of defendants by exercise of power of attorney, transferred property of his brother to his own wife in lieu of her dower vide registered deed---Plaintiffs being legal representatives of deceased owner of property, instituted suit for declaration to the effect that they were owners of property belonging to their predecessor and that registered transfer deed in respect of said property by defendants was wrong, fraudulent and illegal and was ineffective on their rights---Plaintiffs also prayed for perpetual injunction---Suit was concurrently decreed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court---Validity---Both Courts below had properly appreciated evidence and rightly applied law and particularly judgment of Appellate Court, was comprehensive and speaking one---Findings of the Courts below, could not be interfered with in revision by High Court. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----Ss. 188, 214 & 215---Power of attorney---Scope---Execution of power-of-attorney, neither would amount to be divesting the principal of the authority over the subject-matter nor would it amount to absolute right of the attorney over the property as its owner--Attorney had to act as an agent of principal and he had to account for all the transactions and it was not sufficient to prove that attorney had the authority to enter into a transaction, but in addition thereto, he was duty bound to explain that he had rendered true accounts of the transaction to the principal---If the attorney entered into a bargain of sale, he received the consideration on behalf of the principal, which had to be refunded to him and in case of an exchange, he had to explain the true value of the property received and that given in exchange---Transaction of lease and mortgage, should also be for the benefit of the principal---Attorney had to take the principal in confidence before converting the property of the principal on the force of…
🔒
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