1989 PLP 1678 (SCMR)
USMAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Malik ALLAH WASAYA KHAN and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1678 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Ullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | USMAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Malik ALLAH WASAYA KHAN and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Power of attorney‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1678 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Power of attorney‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1678 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Ullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1678 (SCMR) (USMAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Malik ALLAH WASAYA KHAN and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the. 22nd January, 1984 in Regular Second Appeal No.153 of 1983). ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l85(3)‑‑Short time prior to cancellation of power of attorney, the alienation had been agreed upon and receipt was also issued in that behalf‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether transaction of sale was complete before the cancellation of power of attorney and whether suit was time‑barred.
Judgment & Decree
Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th September, 1988. 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 100 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 21‑11‑197(
1. 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 I 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 i 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,()
00. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary additional documents. M.A.K./W‑24‑S Leave granted.