Mst. ZAITOON vs Mst. REHMI through L.Rs.
This matter arises from civil litigation concerning inheritance rights in the estate of deceased Niaz Muhammad. The core legal questions involve whether a compromise order disposing of a civil revision was procured through fraud and misrepresentation, and whether an attorney possessed the requisite authority under a power-of-attorney to enter into a compromise and relinquish the principals' inheritance rights. The court held that no fraud or misrepresentation was established, noting that the applicant herself had signed and affirmed the compromise, and further held that a power-of-attorney granting the power to compromise implicitly includes the authority to relinquish or surrender rights on behalf of the principal. The applications filed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a general power to compromise encompasses the comprehensive authority for an attorney to surrender or waive claims and rights of the principal.
- Whether a compromise order passed by the court can be set aside under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation without sufficient proof?
- Does the power to compromise conferred upon an attorney under a power-of-attorney include the authority to relinquish or surrender the rights of the principal?
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
On 5-4-1971, Mst. Rahmi and Mst. Zaitoon, filed a civil suit seeking declaration that being the widow and the daughter respectively of deceased Niaz Muhammad, they are entitled to share in the estate left by him. The suit was against the legal heirs of Niaz from different wives. The suit was disposed of, vide judgment and decree dated 15-10-1995, in the manner that Mst. Rehmi, was declared to be the widow of Niaz, and thus, entitled to inherit his estate, while the suit of Mst.
Zaitoon, claiming being the daughter of Niaz, was dismissed. Both the sides filed appeals against the decree; one by Mst. Zaitoon and together by Ghulam Mustafa etc., against Mst. Rahmi. The appeals of Mst. Zaiton was accepted while that of Ghulam Mustafa etc., was rejected, vide judgment and decree, dated 20-12-2000. Against this, Ghulam Mustafa etc., brought only one revision i.e. C.R. No.133 of 2001, which was pending adjudication before this Court, when compromise mark "C/1" was filed in the Court, and the civil revision on the basis of the above, has been disposed of on 2-5-2001.
2. Thereafter, two applications under section 12(2), C.P.C., have been filed, one by Mst. Zaitoon (C.M.
No.666-C of 2001), asserting that she has not been given due share in the two other Mauzas, which are valuable lands, and therefore, Mark "C/1" and the order of this Court procured thereupon are the result of fraud and misrepresentation; whereas the other application (C.M. No.584-C of 2001), is by the other legal heirs of Mst. Rehmi, who claim that Kanwar Muhammad Iqbal, their attorney had no power to enter into any compromise and to relinquish their entitlement to the estate, according to the law of inheritance.
3. Heard. From the record, it transpires that Mst. Zaitoon herself has signed the above compromise deed, she was also present in the Court and affirmed Mark "C/1"; besides, Kanwar Muhammad Iqbal, her admitted attorney, had also signed the said document. I am not convinced if any fraud, misrepresentation etc., has been played in obtaining the order from this Court, on the basis of Mark "C/1". I am not impressed with the argument, that as some of the respondents have not executed Mark "C/1", therefore, it is invalid and as such is also not binding upon Mst. Zaitoon. She admittedly has executed the same, and none for those respondents, who she claims, have not come forward to challenge the compromise or the order, therefore, it is not available to the petitioner to plead for the others.
4. As regards the others application (C.M. No.584-C of 2001), is concerned, the power-of-attorney of Kanwar Muhammad Iqbal, has been examined; he has been duly authorized to enter into a compromise. The argument, that there is no power vested with him to give up the right or the claim of the applicants being the legal heirs of Mst. Rehmi, suffice it to say that the powers conferred upon the attorney expressed in the power-of-attorney, also includes the power to compromise.
Obviously, the power to compromise is a very vast and comprehensive power, and this includes that the attorney can relinquish or surrender any of the rights of his principal while acting as his lawful agent. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in these applications. No other submission has been made by the counsel for the parties. Dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases
- Noor Islam vs Ihsanullah etc 2020 YLR 497, 2019 PHC 210
- Muhammad Ishaque vs Addl. District Judge, etc 2022 [M] CLR 1126
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 2021 MLD 1017
- Karachi]. KHALID MUNAWAR and anothers vs HANIF ABDANLand 4 others 2011 CLC 740