Malik AMIR MUHAMMAD KHAN through L.Rs, and others vs MUZAFFAR JAN
This petition called in question the judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a regular second appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree of the District Judge and restoring the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's suit for specific performance. The core legal question concerned the validity of a sale agreement executed by a husband on behalf of his wife without a validly executed power of attorney in his favour. The Supreme Court held that since both the trial court and the High Court correctly concluded on the basis of evidence that no valid power of attorney existed, the husband had no right to enter into the agreement to sell, and the concurrent findings of fact warranted no interference. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact based on a proper appraisal of evidence regarding the existence of a valid power of attorney will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
- Whether a husband can enter into a valid agreement to sell his wife's property without a valid power of attorney?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below regarding the execution of a power of attorney?
- Does a suit for specific performance lie on the basis of an agreement executed by an unauthorized person?
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition called in question the judgment dated 10-4- 2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan whereby regular second appeal filed against impugned judgment has been allowed as a consequence whereof the judgment and decree of the District Judge, dated 14-5-1990 has been set aside and the judgment and decree dated 30-3-1989 passes by Civil Judge dismissing the suit of the petitioner has been restored.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that one Qamar Zaman husband of Muzaffar Jan alias Muzaffar Khanum entered into a sale transaction in respect of suit property on behalf of his wife vide agreement dated 17-1-1979. The petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance against the attorney Qamar Zaman and his wife as well as to the subsequent vendees who have acquired the property in pursuance of the pre-emption suit which was filed by them as in the meanwhile Mst. Muzaffar Jan alias Muzaffar Khanum had sold the property. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit for specific performance on the ground that the agreement was executed by Qamar Zaman who was not holding the power of attorney in his favour. However, in appeal such findings of the trial Court were set aside by the learned District Judge. Against the appellate Court order subsequent vendee filed R.S.A. Which has been allowed vide impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel contended that as far as Qamar Zaman is concerned, he always had been acting to be attorney of Mst. Muzaffar Jan, his wife, therefore, on account of his such conduct the Court may have presumed that the agreement to sell was validly executed between the parties.
4. We have examined the contention of the learned counsel in the light of the evidence available on record as well as the findings recorded by the Civil Judge (trial Court as well as the learned High Court). Both these Courts have concluded on the basis of the material that the power of attorney was not executed validly in favour of Qamar Zaman by his wife therefore, he had no right to enter into an agreement to sell with the Amir Muhammad and others. Since the findings of fact recorded by trial Court as well as Appellate Court are based on correct appraisal of evidence and no fault has been pointed out in such findings, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. Thus, for the foregoing reasons the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Jahanzeb Khan vs The State 2023 PCRLJ 186
- HAYAT AHMAD KHAN through his Legal heirs and others vs Mrs SAMINA 2012 YLR 600