Citation Name: 2025 CLC 1973 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ALLAH BUX vs ALI MOHAMMAD Ss

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

Citation Name: 2025 CLC 1973 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ALLAH BUX VS ALI MOHAMMAD Ss. 199, 200, 201 & 202---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 49---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 39, 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Suit for cancellation, declaration, injunction and recovery of mesne profits---General power of attorney--- Termination of agency---Interest of agent---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Registered document---Presumption---Applicants / plaintiffs sought cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of respondents / defendant by their predecessor-in-interest who had been appointed general power of attorney---Plea raised by applicants / plaintiffs was that sale deed was registered by the attorney after the death of their predecessor-in-interest---Validity---Agreement which was produced as evidence, showed that possession was handed over to predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants as part performance of the contract---Even if the document regarding death of predecessor-in-interest of applicants / plaintiffs was considered, the power of attorney in favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants, coupled with interest for consideration under Ss. 199, 200, 201 & 202 of Contract Act, 1872, remained valid---Power of attorney, under which respondents / defendants claimed the Sale Deed was executed, could not be considered revoked, cancelled, terminated, or vanished---Presumption of truth, under S. 49 of Registration Act, 1908 was attached to such documents and applicants / plaintiffs could not challenge their execution solely on the basis of oral evidence---Applicants / plaintiffs did not demonstrate any legal impropriety, substantive irregularity, or instances of misinterpretation or oversight of evidence in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below---There was no jurisdictional flaw nor were concurrent factual determinations adverse to the applicants / plaintiffs---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts passed by two Courts below as there was no legal error or other jurisdictional defect---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 CLC 1973 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ALLAH BUX vs ALI MOHAMMAD Ss — 2025 CLC 1973 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC