Attorney's Misuse of Power of Attorney in Property Sale Without Consent.
1۔ مقدمے کا پس منظر
2۔ فریقین کا مؤقف
3۔ ماتحت عدالتوں کے فیصلے
4۔ قانونی سوال
5۔ ہائی کورٹ کی مشاہدات
6۔ اٹارنی کی قانونی ذمہ داریاں
7۔ خریدار کی حیثیت
8۔ حتمی فیصلہ
9۔ قانونی اہمیت
حوالہ
بی بی نے اپنے والد، جو کہ اس کے وکیل تھے، پر الزام عائد کیا
مست. سغرن بی بی نے اپنے والد، جو کہ اس کے وکیل تھے، پر الزام عائد کیا کہ اس نے اس کی اجازت کے بغیر اس کی جائیداد بیچ دی۔ سغرن بی بی کا کہنا تھا کہ اس کے والد نے ایک معاہدے کے تحت اس کی جائیداد عبد الستار کو بیچ دی، حالانکہ اس نے اس کی اجازت نہیں لی تھی۔
لیکن سغرن بی بی نے اس فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل کی اور کہا کہ اس کے والد نے ذاتی فائدے کے لیے اس کی جائیداد بیچی
عبد الستار نے اس معاہدے پر عمل کرنے کے لیے درخواست دی، جسے پہلے عدالت نے منظور کیا۔ لیکن سغرن بی بی نے اس فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل کی اور کہا کہ اس کے والد نے ذاتی فائدے کے لیے اس کی جائیداد بیچی اور اس کا حق مارا۔ عدالت نے یہ تسلیم کیا کہ وکیل نے اس جائیداد کے بدلے اپنی ذاتی ضروریات پوری کیں اور اس کی فروخت سے حاصل رقم سغرن بی بی کو نہیں دی۔
نتیجہ
عدالت نے یہ فیصلہ کیا کہ وکیل نے اپنے فرائض کو نظر انداز کیا اور جائیداد بیچنے کا عمل غلط تھا، کیوں کہ اس کی بیٹی کی اجازت نہیں لی گئی تھی۔ اس کے نتیجے میں، عدالت نے نظر ثانی درخواست منظور کرتے ہوئے سابقہ فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دے دیا۔
Must read judgement
Citation Name : 2024 CLC 462 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. SUGHRAN BIBI
Side Opponent : ABDUL SATTAR
Ss.214 & 215----Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42, 39 & 54---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.54---Obligations of attorney---Principal's consent---Scope---Contract for sale---Suit for declaration and suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Suit of the petitioner for declaration, claiming therein that her attorney/father through agreement to sell alienated her property without her permission, was dismissed and suit for specific performance filed by respondent on the basis of agreement to sell was decreed---Petitioner preferred an appeal against the dismissal of her suit, which was also dismissed---Validity---Attorney had to prove that transaction was not for his benefit, which material issue was not proved and instead it was established that suit property was sold in return of the services rendered by the respondent No.1, which convincingly proved that attorney sold suit property for his own benefit---Evidently the transaction carried out secured by attorney for his comfort, residence, food and care extended by the respondent No.1, which influenced the attorney and led to compromising his duties, responsibilities and obligations towards the principal---Advantages/ benefits drawn by the attorney, at the expense of the principal, were established---Said admitted facts constituted provisioning of tangible benefits and called for the necessity of prior permission from the principal---No evidence was led to prove that money allegedly received was paid to the principal---Attorney not even alleged such fact---Hence, requirements of Ss. 214 & 215 of the Contract Act, 1872, were not met---Both the Courts had failed to advert to that material question, which, if considered would have impacted the inferences drawn, found to be erroneous, irrational, where father would deprive his daughter of her property, almost 20 years after the execution of the power of attorney---Apparently, petty family disputes, where the daughter had not invited father to the wedding of her son, had estranged the father---Conduct of transaction with respondent No.1 was an outcome of personal anger/displeasure, which led to non-performance of obligations by the attorney---Said fact did not absolve attorney from performance of obligations as agent---Respondent No. 1 was privy to all that acrimony or bitterness and was aware that no permission was solicited from the principal---Respondent No.1 could not claim benefit of being a bona fide purchaser for value, who was actually a collaborator---Revision petition was allowed, in circumstances