Section 214 : Agent’s duty to communicate with principal
2020 YLR 497 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
NOOR-US-SLAM VS IHSAN ULLAH
12(2), O. XXIII, R.1 & O. VI, R. 4—Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act (X of 1987), S. 13—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.214—Suit for possession through pre-emption— Appeal—Compromise on behalf of attorney—Fraud and misrepresentation—Suit was dismissed against which appeal was filed wherein attorney of defendant got recorded his statement that he had no objection on acceptance of appeal and suit was decreed—Applicant filed application for setting aside of judgment and decree on the ground that fraud and misrepresentation had been committed—Application for setting aside of impugned judgment and decree was dismissed—Validity—Petitioner was bound to plead, explain and mention the mode and manner in which fraud was played before the Court and facts were misrepresented—Applicant had not given factum of fraud and misrepresentation in the application—Attorney was required to get permission of principal whenever an act was to be done on the basis of powers so delegated but when said powers had not been disputed then no such permission from principal was required—Statement of attorney had been recorded on behalf of principal within the powers so delegated and he had stated that he had received the sale consideration of suit property—Applicant had failed to prove the fact of misrepresentation before the Court below at the time when statement of his attorney was recorded—Attorney was equipped with all the powers of principal to plead before the Court—Attorney had been authorized with power of attorney executed in his favour to enter into compromise on behalf of principal—Principal could not plead otherwise once the powers had been given and admitted by him in favour of attorney—Revision was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.
2017 MLD 2030 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUHAMMAD RASHID VS AKHTER ALI KHAN
Ss. 214 & 220—Power of attorney—Gift by attorney—Scope—Gift, ingredients of—Proof—Contention of plaintiff was that gift mutations on behalf of attorney were wrong and illegal—Suit was decreed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court dismissed the same—Validity—Attorney had gifted the suit land in favour of his kith and kins—Defendants being beneficiaries of gifts were required to establish valid gift by proving offer, acceptance and delivery of possession—Impugned mutations were not entered on the instructions of donor (principal) rather same were entered by the attorney and later on attested in absence of donor (Principal)—Conditions required for a valid gift were lacking in the present case—Alleged gifts were invalid which did not create any right in favour of donees—Power-of-attorney contained so many deeds to be performed by the attorney—Attorney before transferring the suit property in favour of his kith and kins was required to have fresh instructions from the principal—Gift was a personal act of donor which could only be performed by himself and none else—Alleged transaction had become suspicious as donor had not gifted the suit property himself—If agent had failed to do so then principal could repudiate the transaction so entered by his agent without obtaining his consent which was disadvantageous to him—General power of attorney contained numerous events for which principal had authorized the attorney including transfer of property—Power of attorney was not specific for the purpose for which it had been used by the attorney—Principal even if had given the authority to gift his property yet there was no reference that it should be gifted to the beneficiaries of the suit mutations and that too after long period of 17/18 years—Principal should have been consulted and permission should have been sought for the gift after delay and passage of such a long time—Power of attorney was executed on 27-03-1984—If intention of principal was to gift his property to the beneficiaries of suit mutations, the same would have been gifted in 1984—Purpose of power-of-attorney was not to gift the suit property—Attorney had used the power of attorney for personal gains—Appellate Court had fallen in error in appreciation of evidence for setting aside the well reasoned judgment of Trial Court—Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court was based on mis-reading and non-reading of evidence which was set aside—Suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed as prayed for—Revision was allowed 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.
2014 PLD 417 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NISAR AKBAR KHAN VS JAMIL NASIR
S.214—Principal’s property without his approval gifted by attorney in favour of his son—Validity—Attorney could not make such gift.
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.
2010 YLR 3222 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
214—Agent/attorney if transferred the property in favour of those who were closely related to hint and that; ultimate beneficiary of the said transfer was the attorney, he was bound to obtain the consent of the principal, failing which, the principal was at liberty to repudiate the transaction.
2010 YLR 3222 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
Ss. 8, 12 & 42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.214—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.79—Plaintiff filed suit for possession through specific performance of agreement to sell or in alternative the recovery of Rs. 1,800,000 and permanent injunction against defendants on the ground that one of the defendants had received Rs.1.5 million of sale consideration and had handed over possession of one of the rooms—One of the defendants contested suit on the ground that he never allowed his general attorney to sell disputed property because ultimate beneficiary of the same was brother of the general attorney and said defendant also filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction both against general attorney and his brother—Trial Court decreed suit of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit filed by one of the defendants—Appellate Court, on appeals, dismissed the same—Validity—Plaintiff and one of the defendants were real brothers—Amount of Rs.1.5 million was not proved to have been paid—One of the marginal witnesses had not appeared and as such, it had been proved on record that the ultimate beneficiary of the alleged agreement to sell was the brother of the plaintiff—Lower courts below had not considered the evidence which clearly showed that not a single penny was paid to the principal/one of the defendants and it was the general attorney who played the fraud with collusion of his real brother; however if there was a transaction of Rs.1.5 million between one of the defendants and the general attorney as alleged, it was very easy for the general attorney to obtain a decree on the basis of that; why did he arrange a new agreement to sell—Natural inference in such circumstances was that he was not confident about the new agreement to sell and as such decided -to insert the disputed agreement to sell in the transaction with collusion and connivance of his real brother—High Court allowed appeal and set aside the judgments and decrees of both the courts below in a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell which suffered from mis-reading and non-reading of record.
2009 PLD 13 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
MAQSOOD AHMED VS MUHAMMAD RAZZAQUE
Ss.188 & 214—Alienation of property of principal by attorney—Attorney before transferring the land to his own kith and kin had to obtain permission from the principal.
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.
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
2006 SCMR 930 SUPREME-COURT
FATEH KHAN (deceased) through L.Rs. and another VS SURRIYA BEGUM
–Ss. 39 & 42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.4, 18, 25 & 214—Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.60—General power of attorney by an illiterate Pardanashin lady for Court case allegedly containing power in favour of attorney to sell her property—Sale
2006 SCMR 1927 SUPREME-COURT
MIR AJAM KHAN VS Mst. QURESHA SULTANA
–Ss. 42 & 54—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.129 (g)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.214—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)—Declaration of title and recovery of possession—Presumption—NonÂappearance of plaintiff in witness box—H
2006 MLD 1717 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SARWAR VS JAMIAT KHAN ANWAR
?
2006 CLC 79 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MOEEN AKHTAR VS Dr. ABDUS SATTAR through Legal Heirs
—-S. 12—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.188 & 214—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XV, R.I — Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Agreement by husband as general attorney of his second wife in favour of his sons from first wife—
2006 CLC 79 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MOEEN AKHTAR VS Dr. ABDUS SATTAR through Legal Heirs
—Ss. 188 & 214—Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss.18 & 47—Agreement to sell by attorney in favour of his real sons—NonÂregistration of agreement—Effect—Such agreement would not put owner or subsequent purchaser through whatever means at alarm
2006 CLC 79 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MOEEN AKHTAR VS Dr. ABDUS SATTAR through Legal Heirs
–S. 12—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 188 & 214—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.79 & 117—Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss.18 & 47—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XV, R.1—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Agreement b
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 PLD 705 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF SIDDIQUI VS Haji SHARIF KHAN through L.Rs.
—S. 12(2)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 188 & 214—General Power-of-attorney—Fraud and misrepresentation—Recitals of deed of power of attorney showed that the primary object of the Principal was improvement of property—Raising of flats on the
2005 PLD 705 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF SIDDIQUI VS Haji SHARIF KHAN through L.Rs.
—Ss. 188 & 214—General Power-of-Attorney in connection with property—Validity of acts under Power-of-Attorney—Scope.
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 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
2005 CLC 1839 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN VS Mst. IQBAL BIBI through L.Rs.
— S. 214—Pardahnashin lady—Property of Pardah-ob serving lady—Such lady is entitled to special protection under law—Property of such lady should be dealt with, with great care/caution especially by those, who stood in fiduciary relationship with
2005 CLC 1839 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN VS Mst. IQBAL BIBI through L.Rs.
—Ss. 188 & 214—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(p) — Sale of wife’s property by husband as her attorney in favour of his real cousin—Denial of sale by wife—Cousin alleging sale in his favour by attorney on payment of price made against a
2005 CLC 1839 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN VS Mst. IQBAL BIBI through L.Rs.
—Ss. 188 & 214—Sale of principal’s property by Attorney in favour of his blood relation—Validity—Such sale would be treated as transfer in favour of Attorney himself, which could not be done or legalized without special permission from principal–
2005 CLC 1839 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN VS Mst. IQBAL BIBI through L.Rs.
—Ss. 188 & 214—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.199—Sale of wife’s property by husband as her attorney in favour of his real cousin—Denial of transaction by wife—Effect—Onus to prove such sale to be with wife’s consent would shift on benefic
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-
2003 PLD 494 SUPREME-COURT
JAMIL AKHTAR VS LAS BABA
—-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 itself of a sa
2003 PLD 16 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
MUNIR HUSSAIN VS MUHAMMAD ASLAM
—-Ss. 188, 214 & 215—Object of appointing agents or attorneys is that a specified person is authorized by the executant to act for and in the name of the person executing it—Power given to joint agents—Effect—Where a power is delegated by a prin
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.
1997 SCMR 1811 SUPREME-COURT
FAQIR MUHAMMAD VS PIR MUHAMMAD
—-Ss. 188 & 214—Power of Attorney—General Power of Attorney–Alienation of principal’s property by attorney—Essential obligations of attorney—Scope of the holder of a General Power of Attorney in alienating the property of his principal in favou
1994 SCMR 818 SUPREME-COURT
SHUMAL BEGUM VS GULZAR BEGUM
Contract Act 1872 —-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 form of alienations like sale without the donor himself having taken a mental conscious decision of making a gift, particularly, on the basis of alleged power of attorney which allegedly gave power to alienate only through a general power of attorney and whether law laid down by Supreme Court regarding transfers by attorneys in favour of next of kin without the specific approval from the principal had been followed in the case.
1992 SCMR 1488 SUPREME-COURT
RIAZ AHMED VS INAYAT ULLAH
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 214—Duty of an agent, in cases of difficulty, to use all reasonable methods in communicating with his principal and in seeking to obtain his instructions—Determination whether a particular case will be covered by expression `cases of difficulty’ depends upon the facts of each case—Where the executants of power of attorney were Pardahnashin ladies and attorney had interest in the property and attorney had only been managing the property and he had not sold a single property and further that power of attorney was executed about seven years back and the executants had been disputing that it was acted upon which only reflected the reluctant’ attitude of the attorney, the case was -“of difficulty” and it was obligatory for attorney to have sought instructions from his principals.
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.