Qanuni Amdad urdu: Specific performance | . Enforcement of property purchased from attorney The High Court held that the original owner did not authorize the attorney to sell the property in the power of attorney. The text of the power of attorney did not include a mention of the sale of the property, therefore the agreement is legally ineffective 2024 Y L R 910

Enforcement of property purchased from attorney
The High Court held that the original owner did not authorize the attorney to sell the property in the power of attorney. The text of the power of attorney did not include a mention of the sale of the property, therefore the agreement is legally ineffective.

2024 Y L R 910

مدعی (محمد خلیق) کا موقف:

مدعی کا موقف تھا کہ اس نے مدعا علیہ نمبر 1 (غلام فاطمہ) کے ذریعے ایک معاہدہ فروخت کیا جس میں 10 مرلہ زمین، ایک پختہ مکان اور صحن دس لاکھ روپے میں خریدنے پر اتفاق ہوا۔ مدعی کے مطابق یہ معاہدہ اصل مالک کے وکیل (پاور آف اٹارنی ہولڈر) کے ذریعے قانونی طور پر انجام پایا اور وہ اس معاہدے کے نفاذ کا حقدار ہے۔

مدعا علیہ (غلام فاطمہ اور دیگر) کا موقف:

مدعا علیہ کا موقف تھا کہ:

1. پاور آف اٹارنی کے متن میں اصل مالک نے اپنے وکیل کو معاہدہ فروخت کرنے کا اختیار نہیں دیا تھا۔

2. زمین اور مکان جو معاہدے میں شامل تھے، ان میں اصل مالک کے پاس نہ تو مکمل ملکیت تھی اور نہ ہی قبضہ۔

3. زمین پٹواری کے ریکارڈ کے مطابق چار بیٹیوں میں برابر تقسیم ہونی تھی، لہٰذا اصل مالک کا معاہدہ فروخت اپنے قانونی حق سے تجاوز کرتا ہے۔

عدالت کا فیصلہ:

عدالت نے مدعا علیہ کے موقف کو درست قرار دیا اور درج ذیل بنیادوں پر مدعی کی اپیل مسترد کر دی:

1. پاور آف اٹارنی میں معاہدہ فروخت کرنے کا کوئی اختیار شامل نہیں تھا۔

2. اصل مالک نے اپنے حصے سے زیادہ زمین اور مکان فروخت کرنے کی کوشش کی، جو قانونی طور پر درست نہیں۔

3. معاہدے میں شامل مکان اصل مالک کے قبضے میں نہیں تھا، بلکہ مدعا علیہ کے قبضے میں تھا۔

4. زمین کی تقسیم پٹواری کی رپورٹ کے مطابق ہونی تھی، اور اس کے برعکس معاہدہ کیا گیا۔

5. اصل مالک کی طرف سے دیا گیا cognovits معاہدے کو قانونی حیثیت دینے کے لیے ناکافی تھا۔

نتیجتاً، عدالت نے مدعی کے دعوے کو غیر قانونی اور ناقابل قبول قرار دیتے ہوئے اپیل خارج کر دی۔

2024 Y L R 910

[High Court (AJ&K)]

Before Syed Shahid Bahar, J

MUHAMMAD KHALIQ---Appellant

Versus

GHULAM FATIMA and 4 others---Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2017, decided on 19th June, 2023.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Power of attorney---Scope---Suit filed by the plaintiff regarding agreement to sell/ transfer of proprietary rights qua suit property was dismissed---Allegedly, the agreement to sell was executed by the attorney of original owner in favour of appellant---Perusal of record revealed that regarding general power of attorney the authority had not been given to general attorney for executing agreement to sell to appellant by original owner---Script of power of attorney did not disclose that she was allowed to perform agreement to sell with someone through the said general power, moreover, in the general power of attorney she was not given power to sell the house or courtyard, whereas, through agreement to sell 10 Marla piece of land along with a concrete house and courtyard were sold in lieu of rupees ten lac (1000000/-rupees)---Report of Patwari revealed that total share of land of original owner and others had 1 kanal 10 marla 2 sarsahi, which had to be divided among four daughters in equal proportions---In such like situation, original owner had made an agreement from her share---As per stance/statement of appellant, the house was stated to be in possession of respondent, hence, it could be said that original owner performed the agreement regarding the house which was not in her possession---As far as the matter of cognovits given by original owner was concerned, respondent was not entitled under law to execute agreement to sell of the land measuring 10 Marlas along with house which was above her original share---If she had given the said cognovits in favour of appellant/plaintiff even then the same had no value in the eye of law---Circumstances established that the court below had not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned judgment and decree, hence, the appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Ch. Muhammad Ilyas for Appellant.

Zahid ul Hassan Chaudhary for Respondent No.1.

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.