Hussain Zada vs Fazal Maula Ss — 2025 MLD 1694 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

Hussain Zada VS Fazal Maula Ss. 8, 42 & 54---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss. 23 & 26---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Suit for possession, declaration and injunction---Concurrent findings of facts---Power of attorney---Delay in registration---Effect---Petitioner / plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit property---Respondents / defendants claimed their ownership of suit property on the basis of general power of attorney executed in their favour by petitioner / plaintiff in year 1992, registered in year 2004---Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently dismissed the suit---Validity---Successor of attorney holder had never mentioned that any delay had been caused in sending the document or that he had received the document of year 1992 in year 2004, therefore, such a delay was unimaginable---Document had wrongly been presented and wrongly allowed to be registered, without any inquiry as to the authenticity of the document or reasons for delay---On the date of registration, petitioner / plaintiff was not staying abroad---Registration of power of attorney conducted in violation of express provisions of Registration Act, 1908, was sufficient to divest the document of its character as a registered instrument---Violation of express provisions of law termed to be an illegality which was discoverable in instrument of registration of the power of attorney---Both the Courts below did not address such illegality---Registered sale deed in favour of respondent / defendant was entirely deriving its validity and authority from the power of attorney which itself was defective, therefore, subsequent sale deed was also illegal and should have been declared ineffective upon the rights of petitioner---Power of attorney clearly mentioned date of 12-5-1992 and when same was being registered on 20-12-2004 i.e. one day before the registration of the sale deed on 21-12-2004 and the vendee accepted such sale he had been really acting as extremely credulous person---Respondent / defendant did not act with due care and caution and he could not be extended benefit of S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Besides, his bona fide in the peculiar circumstances of the case could not be readily inferred---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction decreed the suit in favour of petitioner / plaintiff while setting aside both the judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below being not sustainable---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Hussain Zada vs Fazal Maula Ss — 2025 MLD 1694 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD