ISHRAT SWALEH vs Mst — 2024 PLD 28 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

ISHRAT SWALEH VS Mst. FARZANA SHAIKH S.12---Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 201 & 202---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 17 (b)---Stamp Act (II of 1899), S. 2 (21)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11---Suit for specific performance of General Power of Attorney (GPA) coupled with interest---Rejecting of plaint---Death of principals---Unregistered document---Limitation---Plaintiff was holder of unregistered power of attorney and sought its specific performance on the plea that the GPA was coupled with interest in suit property which could not be revoked / terminated upon the death of executants---Validity---Purported GPA was neither registered nor requisite stamp duty, as required under the law for power of attorney given for consideration, was paid/affixed---Authority of plaintiff to alienate property was hit by provisions of S. 17(b) of Registration Act, 1908, read with S. 2(21) of Stamp Act, 1899---Majority of the executants /principals of GPA had expired as such the GPA, even if executed, upon demise of executants, stood terminated by virtue of provisions of section 201 of Contract Act, 1872---Merely the use of word "irrevocable" in power of attorney did not make it so, unless it was clear from the terms that it was an agency coupled with interest of the agent without which it would be only an independent authority lacking the "interest" as envisaged in S. 202 of Contract Act, 1872---GPA in question was not executed either upon consideration or in any way coupled with interest---In absence of any specific term, as envisaged under the law, the GPA could not be treated as coupled with interest---Through GPA in question no contract was entered between the parties for defendants to perform their part of obligation in certain period of time---In absence of any specific date mentioned in GPA for fulfillment of the part of obligation, provision of second part of Art. 113 of Limitation Act, 1908, was not applicable---Plaint was rejected, in circumstances.

ISHRAT SWALEH vs Mst — 2024 PLD 28 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD