Muhammad Mansha vs Saleem Bibi Ss — 2026 MLD 320 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.

Muhammad Mansha VS Saleem Bibi Ss.39 & 42---Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.188 & 214---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.17, 79, 80 & 129(g)---Suit for cancellation of general power of attorney and subsequent mutations along with declaration of inheritance rights by the widow---General attorney selling land to his real brother---Legality---Permission of principal, requirement of---Execution of general power of attorney, dispute over--- Proof---Onus---Beneficiary of the power of attorney had to prove its validity---Production of two attesting witnesses, requirement of---Non-production, consequences of---"GN" was the original owner of land and had two wives, "SB" and "NB"---From his first marriage with "SB" respondent/plaintiff and respondent /defendant were born, while from his second marriage with "NB" petitioners Nos.2 to 5/defendants were born--- "GN" passed away in 2006---During the process of inheritance, the husband of "SB" (respondent/defendant) discovered that before "GN's" death, some land had already been transferred through sale and gift mutations by petitioner No.2/defendant while acting as attorney of his father "GN", in favour of his brother i.e. petitioner No.3/defendant---"SB" then filed a suit seeking cancellation of these transactions and declaration of her inheritance rights---Issue was centered upon "whether the mutations in question were against law and facts having been passed with connivance of revenue authorities; whether plaintiff was entitled for decree for declaration along with consequential relief and whether power of attorney in favor of petitioner No.2 was bogus and ineffective"?---Held: Respondent/ plaintiff by producing trustworthy, reliable oral as well as documentary evidence substantially proved her case as per law---At the same time the burden to prove the execution of alleged power of attorney as well as valid incorporation of gift deed and sale mutations in question was shifted upon the petitioners/defendants to prove the validity of the said testimonies---The entire lis hinged upon the proof and validity of the power of attorney and the beneficiary of alleged power of attorney was required to prove the validity and execution of Ex.D-1 by producing the subregistrar who registered the said document but the said material witness was not produced and even the patwari and tehsildar who entered and sanctioned the alleged sale as well as gift mutations were also not produced---The petitioners/defendants also did not produce any attesting witness of gift mutation---Thus, non-production of above said material witnesses amounted to withholding of the best evidence and it was legally presumed that had the said witnesses been produced in the evidence, they would have deposed unfavorably against the petitioners/defendants, as such presumption under Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 clearly operated against them---Moreover, power of attorney was attested by only one witness whereas under Art.17 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 it was mandatory to produce two attesting witness and in case of any discord both attesting witnesses were required to give testimony in the court as required by Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Therefore, valid execution of the said document was not proved as per law---Moreover, if one witness had passed away the petitioners/defendants did not make any effort to prove the alleged power of attorney through the mode prescribed under Art.80 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Even otherwise, alleged power of attorney was based on fraud and misrepresentation as such any subsequent transaction made on the basis of said document would have had no validity which were devoid of creating any rights and would have had no sanctity in the eyes of law---In absence of any solid foundation, the superstructure so built would have automatically crumbled down---Moreover, fraud vitiated most solemn proceedings and any edifice so raised on the basis of such fraudulent transaction, stood automatically dismantled and any ill-gotten gain achieved by fraudster could not be validated under any norms of law---Moreover, no specific permission of the principle "GN" was taken since petitioner/defendant (alleged general attorney) transferred land to his real brother ---Trial Court failed to appreciate legal and factual aspects of the case and dismissed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff whereas appellate court after discussing the facts as well as evidence through a well-reasoned judgment and decree had rightly allowed the appeal of the respondent and decreed her suit as prayed for---Further, in case of conflict between judgment between appellate court and Trial Court, the judgment of the appellate court was to be followed unless finding of appellate court was not supported by evidence---Civil revision being devoid of merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Mansha vs Saleem Bibi Ss — 2026 MLD 320 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD