Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 1678

USMAN KHAN vs Malik ALLAH WASAYA KHAN and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 1678
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,354 of 1984
Date1988-09-04
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Ullah and Saad Saood Jan
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff, challenging the High Court's dismissal of their second appeal regarding a suit for declaration and annulment of a sale. The dispute arose from a sale of land executed by the plaintiff’s attorney, who was the plaintiff's son, after the plaintiff had allegedly cancelled the power of attorney. The petitioners contended that the attorney lacked authority at the time of the consent decree for specific performance, as the power of attorney had been revoked prior to the decree. Conversely, the respondents argued that the alienation was agreed upon and a receipt was executed before the revocation, thereby validating the transaction. The core legal questions involve determining whether the sale transaction was legally complete prior to the cancellation of the power of attorney and whether the subsequent suit was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court, finding these issues substantial, granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the alienation and the limitation period applicable to the suit.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the cancellation of a power of attorney invalidate a consent decree for specific performance entered into by the attorney after the date of revocation?
  • Can a sale transaction be considered complete based on a prior receipt despite the formal power of attorney being cancelled before the final decree?
  • Is a suit for declaration and annulment of a sale time-barred when the cause of action arises from a disputed consent decree?
power of attorneyspecific performancerevocation of agencylimitation periodconsent decreealienation of landleave to appeal

ORDER

' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the legal representatives of a plaintiff, in a suit for declaration and the annulment of a sale purported to have been made by the plaintiff-vendor's attorney--his own son, against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioner's second appeal.

2. The case of the petitioner's side was that although the attorney had authority to alienate the suit land which is stated to be more than 1000 kanals, but before the alienation the power of attorney in favour of the agent was cancelled. As stated by the learned counsel, the cancellation of the power of attorney is dated 16-11-1970. Notice of this cancellation was given to the attorney on 21-11-1970.

Notwithstanding this cancellation the attorney gave consent to a decree for specific performance being passed in favour of the alienee on 12-3-1971. Accordingly the mutation was also subsequently sanctioned on 16-6-1973 on the basis of the said decree. The respondent's case was that a short time prior to the cancellation of power of attorney, the alienation had been agreed upon and a receipt was also executed in that behalf prior to the said cancellation. Therefore, the cancellation could not affect the alienation. The question of limitation vis-a-vis the filing of the suit was also raised.

3. After hearing the learned counsel, we consider it a fit case to examine whether the transaction of sale was complete before the cancellation of power of attorney and whether the suit was time- barred. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted.

' Security Rs, 5,000.

' The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary additional documents.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.