[Lahore]
Before Mirza Viqas Rauf and Jawad Hassan, JJ
ABDUL GHAFOOR and another----Appellants
Versus
BABAR SULTAN JADOON and 3 others----Respondents
Regular First Appeal No.71 of 2021, decided on 18th April, 2024.
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 39 & 42---Cancellation of document and declaration---Distinction---Notable distinction between provisions of Ss. 39 & 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 is that the former presupposes that document whose cancellation is sought through suit is void or voidable qua plaintiff---Whereas, in terms of provisions of S. 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, a person entitled to any character or to any right to any property when offended from denial of such character or right or title from any other person, seeks a declaration of his status or right without asking for cancellation in furtherance of such declaration.
Muhammad Ajaib v. Mughal Hussain and 2 others 2004 YLR 690; Khalid Hussain and others v. Nazir Ahmad and others 2021 SCMR 1986 and Mst. Haliman Bibi v. Muhammad Bashir and 2 others 1989 CLC 1588 rel.
(b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)---
----Ss. 201 & 202---Power of attorney---Object, purpose and scope---Interest of agent---Primary purpose of instrument of attorney is to assign or delegate authority of principal to another person as his agent---Main object behind such document is that agent has to act in the name of principal and the principal also purports to rectify all acts and deeds of his agent done by him under the authority conferred through the instrument---Power of attorney can either be general or special but in all circumstances, it must be strictly construed in the light of its recitals to ascertain the manner of exercise of authority in relation to terms and conditions specified in the instrument---When agent has himself interest in the property, which forms subject matter of agency, the agency cannot in absence of an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest.
(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 39, 42 & 54---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 202---Suit for cancellation of document, declaration and injunction---Irrevocable power of attorney---Interest of agent---Appellant / plaintiff filed suit alleging that he executed general power of attorney in favour of respondent / defendant along with an agreement to sell regarding suit property---Appellant / plaintiff sought cancellation of sale deed executed by respondent / defendant in favour of respondents / buyers---Suit filed by appellant / plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court---Validity---Once it was established on record that deed of attorney was coupled with agreement to sell whereunder appellant / plaintiff had also received whole consideration, then deed of attorney so executed was irrevocable---There was no need for the attorney (respondent/defendant) to obtain consent of principal (appellant/plaintiff) before executing sale deed in favour of respondents/ buyers---Appellant / plaintiff was out of possession---Suit was only instituted by appellant / plaintiff while one of the other executants of power of attorney in question was amongst the defendants and had appeared as defendants' witness---Remaining executants of the deed of attorney neither challenged the same nor had come forward to question its validity---High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Mst. Hamida Begum v. Mst. Murad Begum and others PLD 1975 SC 624; Muhammad Sharif and 13 others v. Inayat Ullah and 24 others 1996 SCMR 145; Muhammad Yousaf v. Mst. Azra Parveen 2012 SCMR 380; Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and others PLD 2021 SC 715; Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Misri Khan PLD 2020 SC 749 and National Command Authority through D.G. SPD, Rawalpindi and others v. Zahoor Azam and others 2024 CLC 1 rel.
(d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Art. 72---Document---Proof---Producing document in statement of counsel---Legality---Document produced in statement of counsel for a party relying on that document is not a permissible procedure.
Dr. Mumtaz Ali Khan for Appellants.
Muhammad Faisal Butt for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.
Nemo. for Respondent No.4.
No comments:
Post a Comment