HAQ NAWAZ vs BANARAS S — 2022 SCMR 1068 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

HAQ NAWAZ VS BANARAS S. 12---Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell immoveable property---Proof---Purported vendee failed to mention the date and venue of the purported transaction---Two witnesses in whose presence the sale consideration was paid to the purported vendor, contradicted each other on material details---Neither the relevant roznamcha rapt, nor the purported sale mutation, made mention of any written agreement---Stamp paper did not bear the name of the purported vendee and was purchased in the name of someone else---Neither the said purchaser was produced nor was the vendor of the stamp paper examined---Relevant register of the stamp vendor was also never summoned, and more crucially the witnesses examined in respect of the said agreement did not mention the date thereof---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was dismissed---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1068 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case HAQ NAWAZ VS BANARAS S. 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. Head NotesCase Description

HAQ NAWAZ vs BANARAS S — 2022 SCMR 1068 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 SCMR