Syed MONIS RAZA vs Mst — 2025 CLC 168 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

Syed MONIS RAZA VS Mst. ASIA BANO 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of the petitioners was that since the power of attorney executed by their predecessor in favour of respondent had been revoked, therefore, disputed mutation could not have been executed by the respondent in favour of her husband---Validity---Petitioners were under legal burden to prove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duty bound to give notice to the agent before cancellation of the power of attorney---Power of attorney could only be rescinded after serving a notice upon the attorney any revocation without notice to the attorney would be illegal--Disputed mutation was attested in the year 2001 and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.

Syed MONIS RAZA vs Mst — 2025 CLC 168 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC