1989 PLP 920 (MLD)

Mansoorul Arfin for the Plaintiffs. Abdul Majeed Khan for Defendants Nos. 2 and

3. Rasheed A. Akhund for Defendants Nos. 4 and

5. Mazhar Ali Chohan for Defendant No.1 CMA No.2703/88 is granted, by consent, and the order passed on CMA 4999 of 1987 dated 10‑4‑1988 in the absence of Mr.Rasheed A. Akhund, learned counsel for defendants Nos. 4 and 5 is, re‑called.

2. I have heard Mr. Rasheed A. Akhund and other counsel on CMA 4999 of 1987. Mr. Rasheed A. Akhund, learned counsel for the subsequent purchasers from defendant No.2 has submitted that defendants Nos.4 and 5 are bona fide purchasers for value from defendant No.2 and before they purchased the suit property, they had made enquiries from the office of the Defence Housing Authority and the enquiry revealed that defendant No.2's name had been mutated as the allottee/transferce of the suit plot. It is further submitted that plaintiff No.2 on his own showing had handed over blank documents to defendant No. 1, a broker, and as such he had impliedly authorised defendant No.1 to enter into transaction for the sale of the suit plot. According to learned counsel, by giving blank documents to defendant No.1, an impression had been created that defendant No.1 had full authority to bind the plaintiff No.2 in respect of any transaction for sale or transfer of the suit plot and on account of this impression created by plaintiff No.2, defendants Nos.4 and 5, as bona fide purchasers, after due enquiry from the office of the Defence Authority, acquired the suit plot. Reliance has been placed on sections 226, 237 and 238 of the Contract Act and section 27(2) (B) of the Specific Relief Act.

3. It appears at this stage that transfer in the office of the Defence Authority of the suit plot in favour of defendant No.2 has taken place not only on the basis of the blank documents later on filled up perhaps without authority by defendant No.1 but also on other documents signatures on which documents had been compared for purposes of this application on 10‑4‑1988. It may be observed at this stage that prima facie an agent who forges the signature of the principal, does not create any right in favour of the transferee on the basis of such forged documents. On the basis of comparison of signatures on some relevant documents, it appears that evidence will have to be recorded to come to the finding as to the authenticity or otherwise of certain documents. It may also be observed that the question whether the transfer that had taken place in respect of the suit plot in the office of the Defence Authority was on the basis of blank documents given by plaintiff No.2 and later on filled up or on the basis of alleged forged documents or on the basis of both sets of such documents. In the circumstances an arguable case has been made out by the plaintiff for grant of interim relief and if this interim relief is not granted, irreparable loss A will be caused to the plaintiff. In the circumstances the interim order of status quo granted earlier is hereby confirmed. C.MA. No.4999 of 1987 is disposed of. H.B.T./F‑95/K Status quo order confirmed.