Lahore HC Dismisses Petition Challenging Mutation Due to Delay and Inaction 2025 C L C 168.
 |
| Power of attorney's cancellation |
پاور آف اٹارنی کی منسوخی کے قانونی تقاضے پورے نہیں ہوئے۔
کیس کی کہانی مختصر
اہم نکات (High Court کے فیصلے کے مطابق)
1. پاور آف اٹارنی کی منسوخی:
2. تأخیر اور عدم عمل (Delay & Inaction):
3. ثبوت کا بوجھ (Burden of Proof):
4. حق ملکیت کا اطلاق:
5. قانونی حوالہ جات:
منفرد نکتہ
کیس کا نتیجہ
Must read Judgement
2025 C L C 168
[Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]
Before Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J
Syed MONIS RAZA and 3 others---Petitioners
Versus
Mst. ASIA BANO and others---Respondents
Civil Revision No.314-D of 2015, decided on 4th September, 2024.
Contract Act (IX of 1872)---
----Ss.202 & 206---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 8, 39, 42 & 54---Suit for declaration, possession and cancellation of mutation with mandatory injunction---Power of attorney, revocation of---Burden of proof---Predecessors of petitioners not challenging the mutation in his life time---Delay in challenging the mutation by the petitioners despite having knowledge---Locus standi of petitioners---Application of principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence---Contention of the petitioners was that since the power of attorney executed by their predecessor in favour of respondent had been revoked, therefore, disputed mutation could not have been executed by the respondent in favour of her husband---Validity---Petitioners were under legal burden to prove valid execution of revocation deed by producing confidence inspiring oral evidence, however, such course of action was not adopted, which was fatal to their stance---Under S.202 read with S.206 of the Contract Act, 1872, the principal is duty bound to give notice to the agent before cancellation of the power of attorney---Power of attorney could only be rescinded after serving a notice upon the attorney any revocation without notice to the attorney would be illegal--Disputed mutation was attested in the year 2001 and PW.2 during his cross-examination conceded that predecessor of petitioners was well aware of the disputed mutation and petitioners got knowledge of the same immediately after its execution, however, neither predecessor of petitioners nor petitioners themselves agitated the same and the suit was filed in the year 2009 i.e. after 08 years without any explanation for their inaction to do the needful, which created certain rights in favour of respondent, thus, petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the disputed mutation independently, for the reason that their predecessor himself had not challenged the same during his lifetime---Inaction on part of petitioners also invited applicability of the principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence---Implied consent in accepting the mutation in question constituted abandonment of rights on account of failure to enforce it---Agent can claim ownership rights in land of the principal for himself or for his own kith and kin on the basis of agency document with the approval of principal, failing which principal is at liberty to repudiate the transaction---Such course was not adopted by the principal/predecessor of petitioners despite having knowledge of the disputed mutation, thus, the plea of the petitioner was repelled by High Court---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Fida Muhammad v. Pir Muhammad Khan (Deceased) through legal heirs and others PLD 1985 SC 341; Mst. Shumal Begum v. Mst. Gulzar Begum and 3 others 1994 SCMR 818; Haji Faqir Muhammad and others v. Pir Muhammad and another 1997 SCMR 1811; Muhammad Yasin and another v. Dost Muhammad through Legal Heirs and another PLD 2002 SC 71; Mst. Ghulam Fatima v. Muhammad Din and others 2004 SCMR 618; Ghulam Muhammad v. Zohran Bibi and others 2021 SCMR 19; Atta Muhammad and others v. Mst. Munir Sultan (Deceased) through her LRs and others 2021 SCMR 73 and Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and others PLD 2021 SC 715 ref.
Raza Munir and another v. Mst. Sardar Bibi and 3 others 2005 SCMR 1315; Jamila Khatoon and others v. Aish Muhammad and others 2011 SCMR 222; Fayyaz-ul-Haq and others v. Ghulam Nabi (Deceased) through his legal heirs and others 2022 MLD 688; Abdul Haq and another v. Mst. Surrya Begum and others 2002 SCMR 1330; Nazar Gul v. Islam and 3 others 1998 SCMR 1223; Muhammad Rustam and another v. Mst. Makhan Jan and others 2013 SCMR 299; Agha Syed Mushtaque Ali Shah v. Mst. Bibi Gul Jan and others 2016 SCMR 910; Anjum Mahmood and 5 others v. Rizwan Ahmad and 7 others 2006 CLC 876; Shero v. Muhammad Ramzan and 2 others 2006 YLR 2632 and Muhammad Arshad and 2 others v. Haq Nawaz and 9 others 2019 YLR 958 rel.
Syed Kazim Raza Naqvi for Petitioners.
Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khakhi and Yasmin Haider for Respondents.
Imran Shaukat Rao, Assistant Advocate General.
No comments:
Post a Comment