Section 215 : Right of principal when agent deals on his own account in business of agency without principal’s consent
2022 SCMR 1262 SUPREME-COURT
Syed ATIF RAZA SHAH VS Syed FIDA HUSSAIN SHAH
Ss. 182 & 215—Power of Attorney—Principal-agent relationship—Dishonest concealment of material facts by agent—Conflict of interest—Misconduct and misuse of authority by the agent—In the present case, the agent by exercising the authority conferred upon him, had transferred the property in question by way of a purported gift deed, in the name of his son (the petitioner), without first disclosing all the material facts and getting permission or consent of the principal—Mutation of the property was effected in the name of the petitioner on 4.9.2012, whereas, the principal had revoked the power of attorney on 5.9.2012, which shows that the principal was no more willing for the agent to continue as his agent—No evidence was available to prove that before entering into the transaction, the agent ever informed the principal in this behalf—Since there was dishonest concealment of material facts, therefore, it resulted into a conflict of interest, as such, the dealing was disadvantageous to the right and interest of the principal—Under such circumstances, the transfer of the property by the agent in the name of his son was a classic example of misconduct and misuse of authority by an agent—Transaction in respect of the plot in question effected between the agent and his son (the petitioner) had rightly been repudiated at the request of the principal—Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.
2022 SCMR 1262 SUPREME-COURT
Syed ATIF RAZA SHAH VS Syed FIDA HUSSAIN SHAH
Ss. 182 & 215—Power of Attorney—Principal-agent relationship—Duties of an agent—Scope—Agent dealing on his own account without principal’s consent and without acquainting him with all material circumstances—Right of principal to repudiate such transaction explained.
2022 SCMR 1068 SUPREME-COURT
HAQ NAWAZ VS BANARAS
215—Power of Attorney—Purported agent transferring property to his own sons without consent of principal—Illiterate village and pardanasheen lady deprived of her immoveable property—Father of plaintiffs, acting as an attorney for an old illiterate village lady, transferred her land (suit land) to the plaintiffs through a purported oral sale mutation—Legality—Purported vendor was an old illiterate village dweller, with ill health; she was not able to even move on her own, and had been carried to the Registrar’s office for the execution of the power of attorney by someone—Plaintiffs’ father i.e. the purported attorney, while deposing before the Trial Court, also has not denied the suggestion that she was a pardanashin lady; it was not even pleaded that she received any independent advice and/or that contents of the power of attorney were read over and explained to her before she executed it—Stance of the lady throughout had been that she appointed the plaintiffs’ father, who was her tenant in occupation, as her attorney, merely to manage the affairs of her land and for nothing more, and therefore, given the status of the lady, it was imperative for the plaintiffs to have demonstrated and proved that at the time of the execution of the power of attorney, she was fully conscious of the fact that the document also contained power to sell and that the entire document was read out and explained to her fully and truly, and further that she executed it under an independent advice—Plaintiffs also had to prove that the lady was fully aware and conscious of the consequences and implications of executing the said document—However neither did they prove, nor even pleaded any of it, therefore, it could not be held that plaintiffs’ father was in fact authorized by the lady to sell the suit land—Attorney could not lawfully make transfer of a property under agency in his own name, or for his benefit, or in favour of his associates, without explicit consent of the principal, and in the event he did so, the principal, under the mandate of section 215 of the Contract Act, 1872 had a right to repudiate such transaction—In any case the power of attorney, whatever its worth was admittedly revoked by the lady through revocation deed dated 05-9-1974, thus on 14.10.1974, the date on which plaintiffs’ father purportedly transferred the suit land, he no more remained attorney of the lady, and stood denuded of whatever power he purportedly enjoyed thereunder—Transfer of the suit land by plaintiffs’ father was without authority and was of no legal effect, thus, the same was rightly annulled by the revenue authorities—Appeal was dismissed.
2021 MLD 624 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SAFDAR HUSSAIN JATT VS ZAFAR ALI ARAIN
S.215—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.12 & 54—Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction—Agreement-to-sell immoveable property—Power of attorney, revocation of—Scope— Petitioners contended that attorney, appointed by their deceased father (who executed agreement-to-sell regarding the suit-property) was acting dishonestly so the power of attorney’s authority was revoked—Held, that duly registered power of attorney, in respect of immoveable property, could be revoked only either through another registered instrument after proper notice to the attorney or by way of publication in the newspaper—Principal/Executant could not simply resile from the power of attorney without adopting said process of law—Neither notice was issued to the attorney, in the present case, for the cancellation of power nor the publication was made in the newspaper—Even cancellation deed so recorded did not contain any objection on the authority of the said attorney—Agreement-in-question was, admittedly, entered into within the validity of the power of attorney before its purported revocation, therefore, plaintiff/respondent could not be burdened to suffer the consequences—Contention of the petitioners appeared to be an afterthought firstly on the part of deceased father (original defendant) and then by the petitioners (legal heirs) themselves—In absence of any challenge to authority of attorney, the petitioners could not raise objections regarding invoking S.215 of the Contract Act, 1872—Agreement existed at the relevant time and attorney had powers to sell the property—No illegality or infirmity was found in the judgment passed by the Appellate Court below in decreeing the suit of the respondent—Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
2019 YLR 958 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD VS HAQ NAWAZ
215—Suit for declaration—Principal and agent (attorney)—Transfer of property by attorney to his kith and kin—Permission of principal, requirement of—Concurrent findings of facts by two courts below—Plaintiffs claimed their ownership on basis of oral sale mutation got entered in their favour by their father who was holding General Power of Attorney in his favour by defendants—Suit was decreed in favour of plaintiffs by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court—Plea raised by defendants was that father of plaintiffs as attorney was not competent to transfer suit land of his principal to his kith and kin without specific permission in such behalf—Validity—Neither agent himself could claim his ownership rights in suit land of his principal merely on basis of agency document nor for his own kith and kin; it was sine qua non for agent to have sought prior approval of principal in that behalf after acquainting principal with material circumstances on subject, failing which principal was at liberty to repudiate transaction—Both courts below failed to analyze facts and law on the subject and had committed grave irregularity and illegality while passing judgments and decrees and same could not be sustained in eyes of law—High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by two courts below as same were passed erroneously, contrary to law and usage—Second appeal was allowed in circumstances.
2018 MLD 1503 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. KHADIJA KAUSAR VS NAZIR AHMED
42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 215—Suit for declaration—General power of attorney—Transfer of property by the attorney in favour of his close fiduciary relation—Principle—Plaintiff got registered general power of attorney in favour of defendant/ex-wife with regard to suit property—Defendant on the basis of said power of attorney transferred suit property in favour of her brother—Contention of plaintiff was that general power of attorney and subsequent transfer of property were based on fraud and ineffective upon his rights—Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court decreed the same—Validity—Defendant-attorney had failed to establish that before transferring suit property in favour of her brother either she sought or was granted express permission by the plaintiff-principal for such transfer—Transfer of property made by the attorney as agent of plaintiff in favour of her own brother without permission of principal was hit by S.215 of Contract Act, 1872—Defendant being ex-wife of plaintiff had unauthorizedly transferred suit property of principal in favour of her brother which was not valid under the law—Appellate Court had rightly set aside the transfer of suit property in favour of defendant’s brother—Findings by the Appellate Court were based on proper appreciation of evidence—No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court—Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
2017 CLC 1773 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHIZAR YASEEN VS Mst. KHADIJA BIBI
Ss. 188 & 215—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984). Arts.117 & 120—Principal and attorney—Relationship—Transaction by attorney in favor of his legal heir—Onus to prove—Plaintiffs in suit for declaration and permanent injunction, assailed General Power of Attorney executed in favour of defendant and transfer of property in favour of his son and brothers—Suit and appeal were concurrently decided in favour of plaintiffs by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively—Validity—Once there was transaction of sale, defendants were bound to establish as burden was on attorney to prove that such sale was genuine—No such evidence was produced by defendants who were beneficiaries and were burdened with to prove the fact—Specific allegation was that General Power of Attorney was prepared by committing fraud and on the basis of the same, subsequent mutations of exchange and sale were entered and attested—Findings of two courts below were according to law and evidence produced by parties— Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
2017 MLD 1552 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
WASAB KHAN VS Mst. BAGH BHARI
Ss. 214 & 215—Gift deed—Proof—Principal and attorney, relationship of—Transfer of property in the name of wife by attorney—Plaintiff instituted suit to declare the gift made by defendant to his wife to be ineffective—Plaintiff had appointed defendant as attorney who transferred suit property in the name of his wife—Defence witness, not mentioned in pleadings, had deposed that defendant informed plaintiff of alienation—Trial Court dismissed the suit but Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal—Validity—Law required that “prior permission” of principal was to be acquired by agent for alienation of principal’s property in favour of his close relative—Informing principal about alienation was necessarily an act done subsequently that would not equalize “prior permission”—Principal had a right to repudiate said transaction if it was proved that material facts were dishonestly concealed by agent—Revision was dismissed by High Court.
2016 YLR 1883 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Mst. TAJRIAN VS ZARSHAID KHAN
42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 214 & 215—Suit for declaration—Power of attorney—Pardanasheen lady—Execution of document—Burden of proof—Mala fide—Proof of—Limitation—Transfer of property by the attorney in favour of his relative—Effect—Contention of plaintiff was that she was owner in possession of suit property and impugned mutation in favour of defendant was fake and fictitious—Suit was decreed by the Trial Court but same was dismissed by the Appellate Court—Validity—Suit mutation was entered and attested by the attorney in favour of his wife without taking the vendor lady into confidence—Vendor lady was confided by her brother for obtaining power of attorney that her property would be managed by him under the said authority—Entry with regard to sale, mortgage, exchange, or gift was a cyclostyle one which in normal course was mentioned as a routine matter—Had it been intended to alienate her property in favour of wife of the defendant then registered deed at the same time could have conveniently been attested—Principal might repudiate the sale if agent had bought the estate for himself in the name of someone else and sale was disadvantageous to the principal—Defendant had transferred the plaintiff’s property in favour of his wife without acquainting principal who was a pardanasheen lady—Rights of pardanasheen ladies should be protected when it was established that same had been usurped by male members of the family—Burden of proof with regard to documents purported to have been executed by pardanasheen lady affecting her right or interest in the immovable property would be on the person claiming the right or interest under the deed—Beneficiary of said document was required to prove that contents of deed were understood by the lady and it was her free and intelligent act—If executant of said document was illiterate then same must have been read over to her—Mere efflux of time would not sanctify the action based on fraud and misrepresentation—Time would run from the date when right to sue would accrue and fraud and misrepresentation came in the knowledge—When mutation was challenged on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation then beneficiary would be bound to prove original transaction through cogent and trustworthy evidence—Beneficiary would have to face the consequences on failure to prove the genuineness of the transaction—Mere entry of mutation did not create any right as same was not a document of title—Revenue record would be maintained only for fiscal purposes which did not create nor extinguish right of a party unless proved to the satisfaction of court that same was genuinely entered into and attested after payment of consideration with free consent of vendor—Beneficiary of mutation had failed to prove genuineness of the transaction—Impugned mutation was not sustainable in circumstances—Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and that of Trial Court were restored—Revision was allowed in circumstances.
2012 CLC 79 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SULEMAN VS RASHEEDA BIBI
Ss. 188, 215 & 226—Agent’s authority, extent of—Scope—Attorney once appointed would be as good as principal for purposes of transaction mentioned in his power of attorney, and in such case attorney would not be required to get further permission from principal—Power of attorney once proved to be executed by principal validly, then powers exercised by attorney within its ambit would be valid till its revocation—Sale transaction once completed through attorney would be deemed to be within knowledge and with permission of principal and would be legal and lawful.
2012 CLC 79 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SULEMAN VS RASHEEDA BIBI
Ss. 214, 215, 218 & 226—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.41 —Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54—Suit for declaration and permanent injunction—Contention of plaintiff was that sale mutation attested by plaintiff’s attorney in favour of defendant was without his permission; that attorney had fraudulently obtained registered power of attorney from plaintiff and sold the suit-land at a price less than its purchase price and that attorney had not paid him sale price of suit land—Defendant’s plea was that suit was not maintainable; that he was transferee of suit-land in good faith for valuable consideration and that plaintiff had purchased suit-land through pre-emption suit, wherein inflated price was given to protect sale from pre-emption—Validity—Plaintiff had cancelled power of his attorney just after six days of sanctioning of mutation and filing of present suit—Lamberdar and Naib Tehsildar had deposed that plaintiff’s attorney had received the present sale price of suit-land from defendant—According to deposition of plaintiff’s son, his father (plaintiff) was in need of money; someone in need of money would be expected to sell his assets even at lesser rates—Attorney once appointed would be as good as principal for purposes of transaction mentioned in his power of attorney—Evidence on record showed that plaintiff at the relevant time was in good health with sound eyesight—Plaintiff had filed suit himself and remained alive for one year thereafter—Plaintiff had given power of attorney to his attorney with his free consent, which was duly registered and was not result of fraud or forgery—Power of attorney once proved to have been issued validly by a principal, then powers exercised by attorney would also be valid till power of attorney remained in field—Plaintiff’s attorney was holding powers at time of suit sale, which he had validly exercised, thus, attorney was not required to get further permission from plaintiff—Sale transaction once completed would be deemed to be within knowledge and with permission of plaintiff/principal and legal and lawful—Defendant being a bona fide purchaser from attorney could not be held responsible for defect, if any, in power of attorney—Defendant had no concern with dispute regarding obtaining of permission by attorney from plaintiff before entering into suit agreement—Suit mutation had been sanctioned validly and with consent of plaintiff through his attorney—Plaintiff in such circumstances had no cause of action—Suit was dismissed for being not maintainable in circumstances.
2011 PLD 183 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Syed GHULAM HYDER SHAH alias UMAZ SHAH VS Mst. BIBI AMIRUNNISSA
215—Transfer of principal’s property by attorney in favour of a person closely related to both principal and attorney—Validity—Such transfer could be challenged only by principal himself and none else–Principles.
2011 PLD 183 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Syed GHULAM HYDER SHAH alias UMAZ SHAH VS Mst. BIBI AMIRUNNISSA
Ss. 39 & 42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 215—Suit for declaration and cancellation of sale-deed—Sale of property by principal through his attorney—Suit by legal heirs during lifetime of principal to challenge such sale—Maintainability—Only principal in his lifetime could challenge such sale, but not his legal heirs—If legal heirs of principal were of the view that attorney had deprived their father of his property as he was a person of unsound mind, then they or any one of them could have filed suit on his behalf as his next friend for cancellation of sale-deed—Legal heirs or any one of them had no legal character or right to file present suit, which was not maintainable.
2009 YLR 1640 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN VS ATTA ULLAH KHAN
Ss. 39 & 42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 214 & 215—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17, 79 & 140—Suit for declaration and cancellation of gift—General power of attorney for sale of suit-land executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant—Suit-land gifted by defendant in favour of his son and nephew–Defendant’s plea was that plaintiff had sold suit land after receipt of entire sale price from him and had in lieu thereof executed General Power of Attorney—Proof—Plaintiff, while in cross-examination, expressing ignorance regarding agreement of sale, had not been confronted with same and his signatures thereon—Marginal witnesses produced by defendant had not confirmed signatures on agreement nor the same had been placed before them—Such agreement would not carry any evidentiary value in absence of compliance with provisions of Arts. 17, 79 & 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—Defendant was legally obliged to have obtained consent and approval of plaintiff before transferring suit land to his close relatives—Valid gift could only be made, if there had been an approval and consent of donor with regard to property sought to be gifted with specific mention of donee’s name—All such necessary particulars were lacking in the present case—Oral evidence could neither be led nor considered to prove that parties intended something different from clear stipulation of document—No oral evidence could be admitted or considered that parties, by executing general power of attorney and gift deed, meant to effect a sale in favour of defendant—Plaintiff had executed power of attorney for sale of suit land and not for making gift in favour of close relatives of defendant—Transfer of suit land by defendant by way of gift in favour of his close relatives without prior consent of plaintiff had no legal validity—Suit was decreed declaring impugned gift and subsequent transfers on its basis as illegal and void.
2009 CLC 870 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALLAH DITTA VS NASREEN AKHTAR
Ss. 42 & 54—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.188, 214 & 215—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115—Gift-deed—Proof—Principal and attorney, relationship—Misreading and non-reading of evidence—Transfer of property in the name of near relative by the attorney—Plaintiff appointed general attorney who transferred suit property in the name of his near relative—Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff but Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit—Validity—Trial Court while decreeing the suit rightly observed that defendants could not substantiate their stance by adducing any oral or documentary evidence but Lower Appellate Court had travelled beyond jurisdiction conferred upon it under law and rendered a conclusion which was not only against facts of the case but was also against consistent view of superior courts—Plaintiff succeeded to prove that before making gift by attorney in favour of his relative, no consultation or prior admission was obtained by him—Plaintiff had not given any authority to attorney while executing power of attorney to alienate suit property in any manner whatsoever—Judgment of Lower Appellate Court was contrary to facts and violative of law and therefore, was not sustained—Revision was allowed in circumstances.
2008 PLD 389 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS MUHAMMAD MALIK
Ss. 188, 214 & 215—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42—Suit for declaration of ownership of property—Sale of land by attorney to his relative without consulting the principal—Effect—If an attorney intends to exercise right of sale/gift in his favour or in favour of next of his kin, he/she had to consult the principal before exercising that right—When an attorney on the basis of power of attorney even if “general”, purchases the property for himself or for his own benefit, he should first obtain the consent and approval of principal after acquainting him with all material circumstances.
2008 YLR 1900 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Syeda ABIDA SULTANA VS SUB-REGISTRAR T. DIVISION
S.215—Power of attorney—Executing any document in favour of power of attorney holder—Scope—Power of attorney is required to be construed strictly in accordance with averments contained therein—Power of attorney cannot be interpreted on other assumption under such circumstances expressly or by necessary implications—Holder of power of attorney requires double capacity, one is as his person and other as attorney—Both the positions cannot be intermingled by attorney holder by executing any document in his favour.
2008 YLR 1900 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Syeda ABIDA SULTANA VS SUB-REGISTRAR T. DIVISION
S.215—Board of Revenue, Sindh—Notification No.IGS/BOR/99-878, dated 5-8-1999—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Principal and agent—Transfer in favour of attorney holder—Petitioner was aggrieved of registration of sale-deed by Sub-Registrar executed by power of attorney holder of petitioner, in his own favour, on the basis of Notification No.IGS/BOR/99-878, dated 5-8-1999, issued by Member Board of Revenue, Sindh—Validity—Notification issued by Board of Revenue was not in accordance with law and dictum laid down by the highest Court in the hierarchy of judicial system—High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the Notification and directed the authorities to delete the entries from their registration of sale-deed, after issuing notices to the concerned parties—Petition was allowed accordingly.
2007 CLC 500 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
FIRDOS SHAH VS Mst. MEMOONA BIBI
—-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
2007 CLC 1290 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KISHWAR IQBAL KHAN VS MUHAMMAD ALI ZAKI KHAN
—-S. 215—Duty of agent to consult principal before entering into a transaction for his own benefit—Reasons stated.
2007 CLC 1290 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KISHWAR IQBAL KHAN VS MUHAMMAD ALI ZAKI KHAN
—S. 54—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.201 & 215—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.17(2)(a) & 79—Sale agreement regarding property jointly owned by agent and principal being brothers inter se—Sale of property by agent after revocation of his pow
2006 YLR 460 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ KHAN VS MUHAMMAD AZEEM
—Ss.214 & 215—Agent’s duty to communicate with principal—Right of Principal when agent deals in his own account, in business of agency, without principal’s consent—Agent was duty bound in case of difficulty to use all reasonable diligence in commu
2005 YLR 2761 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ASIF RAEES AHMAD VS Mst. ZUBAIDA BIBI
–S. 215—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 119—Sale of land by general attorney in favour of his closest possible relations—Principal claimed such sale to be illegal and sham for not having been made on his instructions—Burden was on attorney to
2005 YLR 2756 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ALI VS SHINA
—-Ss.214 & 215—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42—Agents’ duty to communicate with the principal—Defendant had used power of attorney and transferred the property of the principal in the name of another defendant (his own son)—Objection was
2005 YLR 2511 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. RASOOLAN BIBI VS NOOR MUHAMMAD
—–S. 215—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42—Suit for declaration—Agent’s duty to communicate with the principal—Defendant who was general attorney of the plaintiff transferred property in the name of his own mother—Agent required the expr
2005 YLR 1479 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ARIF VS ZAFAR IQBAL
-Ss. 214 & 215—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 91 & 92—Execution of general power of attorney by principal—Suit for declaration by principal against the agent—Maintainability—Limitation—Right of p
2004 SCMR 618 SUPREME-COURT
Mst. GHULAM FATIMA VS MUHAMMAD DIN
—-Ss. 188, 214 & 215—Sale of land by Attorney to his own wife without consulting the principal—Validity—Attorney, if wanted to exercise such power in his own favour, had to consult the principal before doing so—Such sale was liable to be struck
2004 CLD 373 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Lt.-Gen. (Retd.) SHAH RAFI ALAM VS LAHORE RACE CLUB
—-Ss.161, 6 & 31—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Chap. X [Ss.182 to 238]—Proxies, nature of—Right to vote by proxy–Scope–Proxies are agents of shareholders and are governed by law of Agency—Vote on a poll can be given either personally or by proxy-
2004 YLR 288 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. MARRIYAM BIBI VS KHAN MUHAMMAD
—-S.42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 215 & 216—Title over suit-land—Attorney, exchanging land without specific authority of the principal—Private advantage of attorney—Plaintiff, a Pardanashin and illiterate lady denied execution of power of
2003 PLD 31 SUPREME-COURT
MAQSOOD AHMAD VS SALMAN ALI
—-Ss. 211 & 215—Power of attorney—Agent’s duty in conducting Principal’s business—Consent of Principal, when necessary—Agent, in the ;resent case, had been authorised to deal with the affairs of the property including the financial powers and if
2003 YLR 2968 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AIYSHA BIBI VS RIAZ BIBI
—-S. 42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.215—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.58—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Decree, setting aside of —Power-of attorney—Authority not vested in attorney– Plea of fraud—Disputed decree was passe
2003 PLD 16 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
MUNIR HUSSAIN VS MUHAMMAD ASLAM
—-S. 215—Where an agent executes an agreement in his own favour or in favour of any of his associates without consent of the principal then the principal has a right to repudiate the transaction.
2002 MLD 322 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MALIK YAR MUHAMMAD VS MUHAMMAD FAROOQ AHMAD KHAN
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 215—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.6—Power of attorney in respect of rights not in existence—Validity—Power of attorney was executed at the time when the executants were neither the allottees nor the owners of suit land—Authority given to the attorney in the power of attorney was to take steps for allotment of land and confirmation thereof in lieu of the verified units of the executants—No specific power or authority to the attorney was given to submit any consenting statement in a case of alleged sale by him on behalf of the executants—Where at the time of execution of power of attorney, the executant had no transferable rights in his favour, such executant could not confer the power of sale on attorney in respect of rights which were not in existence—Consenting statement could not be given by the attorney in circumstances.
2001 YLR 2759 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RUKHSANA YASMEEN VS MUHAMMAD IQBAL MIRZA
Contract Act 1872 —-Ss. 118, 214 & 215—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115—Power of attorney—Alienation of principal’s property—Husband, three months after getting power of attorney from his wife concerning her plot turned her out of his, house and divorced her—About 2-1 /2 months thereafter, husband executed agreement of sale of the said property in favour of his brother and received from him sale consideration—Wife filed suit for cancellation of agreement alleging that she did not give her husband authority to sell her plot, and there was no question of her being consulted or her giving consent or receiving any consideration, when she had already been turned out of his house—Suit was decreed by Trial Court, but Appellate Court set aside the decree in appeal filed by the purchaser—Contention that Appellate Court’s judgment and decree were against the law declared by Supreme Court in case of Fida Muhammad v. Pir Muhammad Khan (deceased) through legal heirs and others (PLD 1985 SC 341)—Validity—Authority to alienate the plot, though contained in power of attorney was meaningless as it was inalienable as per terms of its allotment–Husband’s plea to have sold the plot with consent of wife and paid her sale consideration was not believable when according to his own showing she was living apart from him and was not agreeing to come back to his house and after leaving his house, he had accused her of theft and threatened her with registration of criminal case—No prudent person in such circumstances, would believe that husband had acted in a manner required of him as attorney while proceeding to sell her plot to his brother—Husband had failed to discharge his obligations as an attorney—Wife had every right to repudiate said acts of her husband and attorney—Impugned judgment being violative of law laid down by Supreme Court squarely fell within mischief of 5.115, C. P. C.—High Court accepted revision petition with costs, set aside impugned judgment and decree and restored that passed by Trial Court decreeing the suit of wife.
2001 MLD 2019 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
DOST MUHAMMAD VS MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE
—-Ss.16&,215—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Power of attorney—Trust of principal—Attorney transferring the property under agency in the names of his sons—Agreement to sell in favour of the sons of the attor
1994 SCMR 818 SUPREME-COURT
SHUMAL BEGUM VS GULZAR BEGUM
—-Ss. 214 & 215—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art., 185 (3)—Leave to appeal was granted to consider as to whether an attorney could have exercised the right and power of the owner to make a mental decision for purpose of making a gift as against
1989 PLD 440 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
WALI MUHAMMAD VS MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM
Ss.25 & 215??Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.115??Principal and agent??Alienation of Principal’s property by agent??Principal’s contention that agent had alienated his property without his consent and that no consideration was passed to’ him??Findings of First Appellate Court neither adverted to the evidence in respect of consideration nor decided the effect of non?payment of consideration?Defendants’ evidence including agent’s statement in Court brought forth three versions which mutually contradicted and belied each other??Finding of First Appellate Court thus suffered from misconstruction of evidence on record.
1987 SCMR 1009 SUPREME-COURT
FEROZE BANO VS BILQIS JEHAN
—Ss. 214 & 215–Power of attorney–Suit though filed directly by the plaintiff but endorsement made at the end of the plaint showed that plaintiff had appointed three persons as her attorney through a registered general power of attorney who, or any one
1986 PLD 234 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
WORLD WIDE TRADING CO. LTD. VS SANYO ELECTRIC TRADING CO. LTD.
Ss. 182 to 238-Agency-Creation of-Agency with interest -Termination of such agency how and when possible-Memorandum of agreement-Interpretation.Section 182, Contract Act, 1872 defines an agent as a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealing with third persons. Section 186 provides that the authority of an agent may be express or implied. Section 189 authorises an gent, in emergency, to do all such acts as are for the purpose of protecting his principal from loss. Sections 201 to 210 deal with revocation of authority. An agency is terminable by the principal revoking his authority, or by the agent renouncing the business of the agency, and where the agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject-matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest. Where there is an express or implied contract that the agency should be continued for any period of time; the principal must make a compe
1985 PLD 21 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MACKINNON KACKENZIE & CO VS SECRETATY TO THE GOVT. OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF LABOUR MANPOWER AND OVERSEAS PAKISTANIS
Ss. 182 to 238-Law relating to legal relationship between agent and principal discussed. Halsbury’s Law of England, 3rd Edn., para. 351, p. 146 of Vol. 1, quoted.E. A. Nomain for Appellant.
1965 PLD 445 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HAJI SHEIKH HABIBULLAH VS MESSRS MUHAMMAD AMIN
Contract Act 1872 Ss. 215 & 216-Agent appointed to sell his principal’s goods buying them himself on his own account-Principal ratifying such sale-Transaction ipso facto not void.