General power of attorney

2025 PLD 63 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 188 & 214Powers-of-Attorney Act (VII of 1882), S. 2Principal-agent relationshipGeneral power of attorneyTransfer of property by the attorney in favour of his sons

Holder of a general power of attorney must obtain special permission from the principal when alienating the principal's property, either in his own favor or in the name of his relatives

Attorney would require prior permission, approval and consent of the principal when he wants to transfer the property in the name of his close relatives.

2025 CLC 1961 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 6(3) & 6(17)Capital Value Tax on immovable propertyGeneral power of attorneyPrinciple "noscitur a sociis"

Petitioner was aggrieved of refusal of revenue authorities from issuing Fard Malkiat (revenue record) on the plea that Capital Value Tax ('CVT') had not been paid on general power of attorney issued in his favour

Validity

Legislature in S. 6(3) of Punjab Finance Act, 2012 talked about acquisition of immovable property and had used term "power of attorney" alongside other methods such as purchase, gift, exchange, surrender, relinquishment and lease

By applying principle of "noscitur a sociis", it could be inferred that the Legislature intended to impose CVT specifically on a general power of attorney when an individual had acquired immovable property through it and not otherwise

Transfer of ownership for immovable property involves a registered instrument, as mandated by Registration Act, 1908

Such instrument needs registration with Registrar of Documents, requiring payment of stamp duty under Stamp Act, 1899 and a registration fee

This is a straightforward process but an alternative method has emerged in recent years, moving away from the Registrar of Documents

This alternative facilitates private property transfers using documents like transfer letters, agreements to sell and power of attorneys

Provision of S. 6(17) of Punjab Finance Act, 2012 mandates that if CVT is not collected from the person liable to pay it, the outstanding amount may be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue following the procedure outlined in Land Punjab Revenue Act, 1967

Sub-Registrar was not empowered to prohibit issuance of Fard Malkiat to property owner without an injunctive order or attachment order by a Court or competent authority

High Court set aside the order of Sub-Registrar prohibiting issuance of Fard Malkiat to petitioner, as the same was without lawful authority

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2025 CLC 1973 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 199, 200, 201 & 202Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 49Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 39, 42 & 54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115Suit for cancellation, declaration, injunction and recovery of mesne profitsGeneral power of attorneyTermination of agencyInterest of agentConcurrent findings of facts by two Courts belowRegistered documentPresumption

Applicants / plaintiffs sought cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of respondents / defendant by their predecessor-in-interest who had been appointed general power of attorney

Plea raised by applicants / plaintiffs was that sale deed was registered by the attorney after the death of their predecessor-in-interest

Validity

Agreement which was produced as evidence, showed that possession was handed over to predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants as part performance of the contract

Even if the document regarding death of predecessor-in-interest of applicants / plaintiffs was considered, the power of attorney in favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants, coupled with interest for consideration under Ss. 199, 200, 201 & 202 of Contract Act, 1872, remained valid

Power of attorney, under which respondents / defendants claimed the Sale Deed was executed, could not be considered revoked, cancelled, terminated, or vanished

Presumption of truth, under S. 49 of Registration Act, 1908 was attached to such documents and applicants / plaintiffs could not challenge their execution solely on the basis of oral evidence

Applicants / plaintiffs did not demonstrate any legal impropriety, substantive irregularity, or instances of misinterpretation or oversight of evidence in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below

There was no jurisdictional flaw nor were concurrent factual determinations adverse to the applicants / plaintiffs

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts passed by two Courts below as there was no legal error or other jurisdictional defect

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2021 SCMR 1298 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 182 & 202General Power of AttorneyGiftInterest of attorney in the property

Widow appointed as attorney by her children transferring her share and that of her son in subject property to her daughter

Legality

Power of Attorney in the present case was not an irrevocable one

Daughter/respondent had not claimed the gift of suit property by the principal (i.e. all legal heirs) rather she claimed the gift through the attorney (i.e. her mother)

Admittedly, the principal had never given specific power of attorney for gift of the specific/subject property in favour of the daughter/respondent

Furthermore impugned gift transaction was made by the widow twenty (20) years after the Power of Attorney, executed in her favour by her children/legal heirs

Widow/agent had gifted her share and that of her son (principal) herself in favour of her daughter, therefore, the gift was invalid to the extent of the share of the son

Appeal was allowed.

2019 CLCN 4 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 12Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17 & 79Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 41 & 55Suit for declarationSale mutationGeneral power of attorneyAgreement to sell by attorneyProofProcedureRequirementsRegistered documentProof ofBona fide purchaserRequirements

Contention of plaintiff was that suit property had been transferred on the basis of fictitious and forged power of attorney whereas defendants contended to be bona fide purchasers

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Agreement to sell was required to be attested by two witnesses

Defendant, being beneficiary of agreement to sell were required to establish the same by producing marginal witnesses in support of its execution qua the contents of said document

Defendants failed to produce marginal witnesses of agreement to sell

General power of attorney creating interest in any immovable property was not only required to be registered but also attested by two witnesses

Plaintiff had disputed the execution of general power of attorney and defendants being beneficiaries of the same were required to have established the contents of said document

Mere registration of a document would not prove its valid execution as the contents of the same were to be established through the manner and mode as provided under Art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Defendants were bound to prove that general power of attorney was validly executed

Defendants had produced only one marginal witness of general power of attorney and other witness of said document was not examined

General power of attorney had not been established, in circumstances

Alleged attorney was not ostensible owner of suit property nor he had valid authority to transfer the said property to the defendants

No one could transfer to other the title or right better than he himself owned or possessed

Burden of proof was on the beneficiaries to establish that all the ingredients of S. 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 had been complied with

Revision was dismissed in limine.

2019 PLD 717 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 42Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3Suit for declarationLimitationEstoppel, principle ofApplicabilityScopeGeneral power of attorneyJudicial recordPresumption of correctnessSuit property was transferred through general attorney which was not challenged by the principal during his life time

Contention of plaintiffs was that impugned mutation and subsequent transactions were based on fraud and misrepresentation

Suit was decreed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court dismissed the same

Validity

Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs survived for fifteen years after attestation of impugned mutation but he did not assail the same during his life time

If any authority was not conferred upon the agent but subsequently it was acknowledged by the principal then it carried value in the eye of law

Conduct of predecessor-in-interest was sufficient to prove that he was not claiming the ownership of suit property

Principle of estoppel was applicable in the present case

Judicial record had presumption of correctness and did not require any proof

Decision of Court of competent jurisdiction could not be equated as at par with the statement of witness

Present suit had been filed after twenty eight years and same was time barred

Any suit instituted beyond the statutory period was to be dismissed

Jurisdiction of Court would depend on law of limitation

If proceedings before the Court were beyond the scope of limitation then it could not assume jurisdiction

Plaintiffs had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2018 MLD 1503 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 42Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 215Suit for declarationGeneral power of attorneyTransfer of property by the attorney in favour of his close fiduciary relationPrinciplePlaintiff got registered general power of attorney in favour of defendant/ex-wife with regard to suit propertyDefendant on the basis of said power of attorney transferred suit property in favour of her brother

Contention of plaintiff was that general power of attorney and subsequent transfer of property were based on fraud and ineffective upon his rights

Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court decreed the same

Validity

Defendant-attorney had failed to establish that before transferring suit property in favour of her brother either she sought or was granted express permission by the plaintiff-principal for such transfer

Transfer of property made by the attorney as agent of plaintiff in favour of her own brother without permission of principal was hit by S.215 of Contract Act, 1872

Defendant being ex-wife of plaintiff had unauthorizedly transferred suit property of principal in favour of her brother which was not valid under the law

Appellate Court had rightly set aside the transfer of suit property in favour of defendant's brother

Findings by the Appellate Court were based on proper appreciation of evidence

No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2018 YLRN 145 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 60General power of attorneyGift by attorney to his fiduciary relationsSecondary evidenceProduction ofRequirementsExpert reportEvidentiary valueFraudLimitationContention of plaintiff was that general power-of-attorney and gift mutation were result of fraud and misrepresentationSuit was dismissed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court decreed the sameValidity

When plaintiff appeared in witness-box and deposed that neither she appointed her general attorney nor authorized him to alienate her property through gift, onus to prove the valid execution of general power of attorney as well as attestation of mutation and transaction reflected therein would shift upon the defendants being beneficiaries

Basic document i.e. original general power of attorney was not tendered in evidence by the defendants

Original document was required to be brought on file so that genuineness of signatures/thumb impression of the executant over the same could be ascertained

If said document had been lost or destroyed defendants were bound to file application for seeking permission to tender its attested copy as secondary evidence

Attested copy of general power of attorney was brought on file but without seeking any such permission for its exhibition as secondary evidence

Had defendants moved such an application, they were bound to first prove its lost or destroy and thereafter could be permitted to lead the same in evidence

Attested copy of attorney deed did not suffice the purpose of proving the same

Presumption attached to copy of a registered document would be to the extent of document having been registered and not to the effect having been executed by a particular person

Attesting Officer should procure signature and thumb impression of the principal against the entry made by his official in Behi Register

Application could be made for comparison through expert in such circumstances

No application for comparison of signature/thumb impression through expert had been moved by the defendants

Report of expert was not conclusive evidence but if it was proved, the same could be used as corroborative piece of evidence

Beneficiary had incurred an adverse presumption against him by not resorting to such exercise

Deed Writer, Stamp Vendor and one of the attesting witness who played their role in construction of attorney deed could not be examined being already departed

Attesting Officer was not brought into the witness-box and only one marginal witness was examined but his sole statement was insufficient to prove the contents as well as the signature of executant

Defendants had failed to prove the execution of their documents

Agent on behalf of his principal could not make a gift to his fiduciary relations without seeking prior permission to transfer the property

No embargo of limitation could be imposed to challenge a fraudulent instrument

Document being result of misrepre-sentation was liable to be struck down and could not be protected with rule of limitation

Fraud would vitiate the most solemn proceedings and could not be perpetuated due to some hitch/ objections

Alienation of suit property by the brother of plaintiff in favour of his sons on the basis of general power of attorney was not sustainable

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 CLD 1285 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9 & 10Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 17Suit for recovery of financeGeneral power of attorneyRegistered documentBoard resolution, non-filing of

Defendants resisted suit on grounds that it was not filed by a person duly authorized as no Board resolution was produced

Validity

Suit was filed by duly authorized attorney whose registered power of attorney was attached with plaint

Registered document was per se admissible in evidence, therefore, there was no requirement of filing Board resolution or any other document along with such power of attorney

Requirement of S. 9(1) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was of authorized person only and Power of Attorney of authorized person was available on Court file and same was sufficient to fulfil requirement of S. 9(1) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

No defense was set up with reference to amount claimed by plaintiff Bank, consequently, application for leave to defend suit was dismissed

Plaintiff Bank had proved disbursement of finance facilities as well as its availing by defendant

Finance agreement expired on 30.06.2008 and plaintiff Bank could not claim markup after said period to which it was not entitled

High Court declined markup after expiry of finance facility agreement

Suit was decreed accordingly.

2017 YLR 495 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 31, 32 & 202Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 54Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 19Suit for permanent injunctionGeneral power of attorneyAgreement to sell by the attorneyTransfer of property by the Revenue Officer on the basis of decree for permanent injunctionContingent contractScopeAlleged agreement to sell was subject to conferment of proprietary rights

Respondents could not sue for enforcement of conditional agreement to sell unless proprietary rights were granted in favour of original allottee or after his death in favour of his legal heirs

When vendee had executed general power of attorney along with an agreement to sell then transaction would be under S. 202 of Contract Act, 1872

Attorney had executed agreement to sell in favour of his own kids on the basis of general power of attorney

Attorney without seeking specific prior permission could not execute an agreement to sell with his near and dear ones

Decree was passed in a suit for permanent injunction but Revenue Officer considered the same as had been passed in a suit for specific performance

Matter was remanded to the Revenue Officer for decision afresh

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2016 CLC 887 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Power of attorney should be construed strictly.

2016 CLC 887 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 12Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.17 & 79Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell propertyGeneral power of attorneySale of property by the attorney to his close relative without permission of principalUnilateral agreementAgreement, proof ofProcedureGeneral attorney executed an agreement to sell property in favour of his motherSuit was dismissed concurrentlyValidityAlleged attorney executed an agreement to sell in favour of his motherWhereabouts of suit properties were not specifically mentioned in the general power of attorneyProperty in question could not be chosen for the purpose of sale and transferImpugned transaction was doubtful in circumstancesNo uncertainty or vagueness was permissible in the power of attorneyAlleged power of attorney was result of fraud and fabrication just to usurp the property of a ladyPower of attorney to be construed strictly

Only such powers qua the explicit object which were expressly and specifically mentioned in the power of attorney to be exercised by the agent

Attorney could not alienate property to his close relatives i.e. mother, father, brother, wife etc. without getting special permission from the principal

No such permission was obtained by the attorney from the principal for sale of her property to his mother

Alleged agreement to sell was not enforceable under the law

Alleged agreement to sell was unilateral which could not be enforced even same had been admitted by the parties

Any agreement creating future obligations should be attested by two truthful male witnesses or if two male witnesses were not available then one male and two female witnesses could attest any such instrument

Marginal witnesses of agreement to sell were not produced before the Trial Court to prove the same

One marginal witness of alleged power of attorney was not produced before the Trial Court to prove the same

Plaintiffs had failed to prove alleged power of attorney and agreement to sell

Agreement to sell had been fraudulently prepared by the alleged attorney

Plaintiffs had failed to prove their case

No illegality or irregularity had been committed by the courts below while dismissing the suit

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 PLD 41 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

O. VI, Rr. 7 & 17Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12Suit for specific performance of contractMaxim: Secundum allegata et probata, principle ofApplicabilityDeparture from pleadingsGeneral power of attorneyNovation of contractEx parte evidence and affidavit of plaintiff was outright departure from pleadings

Averments made in the pleadings did not constitute evidence, evidence led by the party in support of his pleadings should be consistent therewith

Pleadings could not be departed except by way of amendment

Anything stated outside the scope of such an averment could not be looked into

Rule of "secundum allegata et probata" would not only exclude the elements of surprise but also preclude the proving of the facts which were not contained in the pleadings

Plaintiff himself had established novation of original agreement by producing/introducing general power of attorney on the basis of which he himself transferred the subject matter in favour of defendant

Plaintiff was estopped by his own conduct

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 SCMR 1469 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54Suit for declaration and permanent injunctionGeneral power of attorneyGenuineness ofFraud and misrepresentation

Female-plaintiff filed a suit alleging that General Power of Attorney executed by her in favour of defendant was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation; that she was given the impression that power of attorney was being obtained to institute a pre-emption suit regarding sale of land by her brother, however the same was used to vest complete authority in the defendant to sell property belonging to the plaintiff; that she was at the mercy of her husband, who joined hands with the defendant to deprive her of her property

Validity

Plaintiff admitted that she executed the deed of Power of Attorney; that she visited the office of Sub-Registrar, and that deed of Power of Attorney was attested by her husband

Deed of Power of Attorney bore the thumb impressions of the plaintiff and her National Identity Card number was also mentioned on the same by the Sub-Registrar

Proper certificate as required by law was appended to the deed of Power of Attorney, and it was also read over to the plaintiff by the Sub-Registrar

Stamp vendor stated in his evidence that it was the plaintiff who purchased the stamp papers for executing the Power of Attorney

Official of Deputy Commissioner's Office fully endorsed the view of Stamp Vendor

Moharrar Registry in his evidence also supported due execution of deed of Power of Attorney by the plaintiff in favour of defendant

During cross-examination of defendant, not a single question was put to him to suggest that deed of Power of Attorney was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, or that the same was not read over and explained to the plaintiff

Evidence on record suggested that plaintiff and her husband were living cordially at the time when the Power of Attorney was executed in favour of defendant, and when subject property was sold on the basis of the same; that plaintiff instituted the present suit at the instance of her brother, who out of greed was after her property and was pursuing the case throughout

Plaintiff's husband testified that plaintiff duly executed the deed of Power of Attorney with her free will and consent, in his presence and got it registered with the Sub-Registrar; that suit land was sold and consideration for the same was received by the plaintiff

Such statement of plaintiff's husband was not seriously challenged by the plaintiff, in any manner

Plaintiff did not come to the court with clean hands and a clear stance

Suit of plaintiff had been rightly dismissed

Appeal filed by plaintiff was dismissed accordingly.

2010 MLD 1167 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 12General power of attorneyRevocationEffectPlaintiff filed suit for specific performance of the contract or in the alternative recovery of Rs.2,4000Trial Court decreed the suitAppellate Court allowed appeal and set aside the decree of the Trial Court

Plaintiff asserted that an agreement to sell was executed in his favour by general attorney of the defendants and contention of the defendants, that the said general attorney was not authorized to execute the same and the act of the general attorney to enter into agreement to sell on their behalf was without lawful authority, was not justified

Defendants in the written statement had categorically admitted the execution of the document in favour of the general attorney and stated that the same was got cancelled subsequently

One of the defendant's witnesses admitted the period of, general attorney from 1-1-1978 to 15-5-1998 and admitted that general power of attorney had empowered the attorney to sell the land

Plaintiff having proved execution of document and the Trial Court having rightly decreed the suit, High Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court.

2010 PLD 295 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 12Specific performance of agreement to sellRescission of agreement

Plaintiff filed suit before expiry of time fixed for completing the transaction as the defendant refused to sell the suit property and sought cancellation of sale agreement

Validity

Contract could come to an end without notice where buyer himself had refused to complete the transaction

Notice for termination of contract was dispatched to plaintiff four days after expiry of contract period without granting any time to plaintiff to complete the transaction

Neither the suit was filed prematurely nor there was failure on the part of plaintiff to complete the sale transaction, on the contrary it was the defendant who prior to expiry of date of agreement had second thought on account of family pressure and refused to perform his part of obligation

High Court directed the defendant to transfer the suit property in the name of plaintiff

Suit was decreed in circumstances.