KHADIM HUSSAIN vs Mir MAQSOOD ALI S — 2026 CLC 321 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.

KHADIM HUSSAIN VS Mir MAQSOOD ALI S.12(2)---application under S.12(2) C.P.C.---Maintainability---Locus standi---Requirement of direct and subsisting legal interest at the relevant time---applicants acquiring interest in the property only after culmination of litigation and final judgment---Chain of title already declared defective and such decision having attained finality---Effect---applicants lacking locus standi could not collaterally challenge judgment having attained finality---Original vendors having no valid title in suit property---Effect---One cannot transfer what one does not possess---Principle---Subsequent transactions on the basis of defective title---Effect---Subsequent transactions flowing from defective title would stand vitiated---High Court in earlier judgment declared power of attorney as fictitious and consequent mutations defective---applicants invoked S.12(2) of C.P.C. to assail the High Court judgment which had attained finality and declared the general power of attorney as fictitious and bogus, thereby invalidating subsequent mutations executed on its strength---The original defendants (respondents Nos. 8 to 13) had actively contested the suit through trial, appeal, and revision but failed---applicants claiming to be subsequent purchasers of the suit property through those very defective mutations argued that they were not parties to the earlier proceedings and had been denied the opportunity to defend their rights---However, as their alleged title stemmed entirely from a void and fraudulent power of attorney, their claim remained tainted by the same foundational defect, leaving them without any independent or superior right---Therefore, the pivotal question arisen for determination before the High Court as to "whether the application under S.12(2) of C.P.C. was maintainable by subsequent purchasers who acquired interest in the suit property only through mutations rooted in a general power of attorney already declared fictitious and void, when importantly, such applicants neither held title nor had any subsisting legal interest at the time of the original litigation and final judgment which had attained finality?"---Held: admittedly, respondents Nos.8 to 13 (original defendants) actively contested the suit at all three stages; trial, appellate, and revisional---However, the general power of attorney allegedly executed in favour of respondent No. 13 was conclusively held to be fictitious and bogus---Consequently, the land transfers effected through mutations, attested on 31.10.1970, on the strength of the said power of attorney, were declared defective---It was undisputed that the applicants derived their title from those very mutations---Therefore, their claim was tainted by the same foundational defect---The legal maxim "nemo dat quod non habet" i.e. one cannot transfer what one does not possess, squarely applied to the present case---Since the original defendants had no valid title to convey, the applicants, having derived title through them, acquired no better or independent right---Having stepped into the shoes of the original defendants, the applicants were bound by the same fate; both must sail or sink together---Position of the applicants was devoid of legal sanctity---The judgment of the High Court dated 27.02.2006, having attained finality, conclusively held the general power of attorney to be fictitious and the consequent mutations based thereon as defective---any subsequent transactions flowing from such a defective title stood vitiated in the eyes of law---The applicants, having derived their title from respondents Nos. 8 to 13, who themselves held no valid title, could not claim any superior or independent right---action taken by the revenue authorities, whereby they cancelled all subsequent mutations rooted in the defective mutations in question, including those in favour of the applicants, was not only in accordance with law but also a necessary consequence to uphold the sanctity of the final judicial determination passed by the High Court---Record unequivocally reflected that at the time when the original suit was instituted, contested, and ultimately decided, culminating in the judgment passed by the High Court, the present applicants neither held title nor had any demonstrable connection with the suit property or the litigation arising therefrom---No mutation stood attested in their favor during the pendency of the earlier proceedings, and their alleged interest in the property only materialized through subsequent mutations executed by respondents Nos. 8 to 13, post-finality of the said judgment---The applicants were complete strangers to the prior litigation and could not claim to have been prejudiced by a judgment rendered at a time when they held no legal or proprietary interest in the property---The mere fact of acquiring property at a later stage through a chain of title already declared defective did not confer upon them the right to challenge the judgment collaterally through an application under S.12(2) C.P.C.---Such an application could be maintainable only where the applicant had a direct and existing legal interest therein at the relevant time---The applicants, therefore, lacked the requisite locus standi to maintain the present proceedings, and their claim amounted to an impermissible attempt to reopen settled issues by way of indirect challenge, which the law did not recognize---application under S.12(2) of C.P.C. was without merit and same was dismissed, in circumstances.

KHADIM HUSSAIN vs Mir MAQSOOD ALI S — 2026 CLC 321 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC