ZULFIQAR ALI vs MUSARRAT BIBI and otherss
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the return of dowry articles by the petitioner to the respondent, Mst. Musarrat Bibi. The petitioner relied on an agreement (Exh.D/1) to substantiate his claim that the dowry had been returned. The core legal question was whether this agreement was binding upon the respondent. The High Court had previously determined that the respondent was not a party to the agreement and that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent's brothers, who allegedly signed the document on her behalf, possessed any legal authority to act as her agents in this matter. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the High Court and the Additional District Judge, holding that in the absence of proof of authorization, the agreement could not bind the respondent. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition, upheld the lower courts' concurrent findings, and refused to grant leave to appeal.
- Can an agreement regarding the return of dowry bind a party who was not a signatory and did not authorize the signatories to act on her behalf?
- Is a principal bound by an agreement signed by family members without proof of agency or authorization?
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- It is the claim of the petitioner that he had returned the Dowry etc. To the respondent and an agreement (Exh.D/1) was pressed into service to support the said claim. It was rightly held by the learned High Court that Mst. Musarrat Bibi respondent was not a party to the said agreement; that according to the petitioner the said agreement had been allegedly signed by the two brothers of the first respondent acting on her behalf which signatures had been denied by the said brothers and that the petitioner could not show any authority given by Mst. Musarrat Bibi to her brothers to enter into A the said agreement with the petitioner.
2. In this view of the matter, the findings of the learned High Court affirming the conclusions reached by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozewala were not open to any exception.
3. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.. Leave refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- ZULEKHA Versus MUHAMMAD NABI 2026 CLC 92
- Mst. Haseena Bibi vs Abdul Haleem, etc 2024 SCP 20, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 291