Relationship

In the event of death of the principal or attorney, any instrument relating to delegation of powers in favour of a particular person becomes redundant.

Lawyer is not agent of his client but is a spokesman and advisor to his client.

Appellant / defendant resisted suit filed by respondent / plaintiff on the plea that suit property had already been sold to him by the attorney of previous owner

Both the Courts below concurrently decided the suit and appeal in favour of respondent / plaintiff

Validity

Property changed hand through attorney by previous owner for the benefit of appellant / defendant, who was his brother, therefore, transaction could not escape from requirement of special permission from principal

Sanctity of the Iqrarnama presented after seven years of filing of written statement was shrouded in doubt by the testimony of witnesses

Trial Court rightly concluded that such Iqrarnama was nullity in the eye of law

Both the Courts below rightly held that the attorney was incompetent in making sale of subject property to his own brother appellant / defendant

High Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below who had dealt with the matter meticulously and rendered well-reasoned judgments

Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Power of attorney is written authorization, whereby "principal" authorizes "agent" to do acts specified therein on behalf of the "principal"

Such acts when executed are binding on the "principal" as if done by him

Primary purpose of instrument of such nature is to assign authority of "principal" to another person as his agent.

Petitioner/plaintiff contended that he had purchased suit house from predecessor of respondents/ co-sharer vide sale agreement with payment of half of the stipulated consideration while the mutation was agreed to be transferred on payment of remaining amount; that petitioner continued paying monthly rent to the predecessor; that after demise of predecessor, his brother despite knowledge of sale deed had fraudulently mutated the house in his name and consequently sold the same

Validity

Petitioner's witnesses did not prove their presence at the time of execution of agreement/payment to the predecessor of respondent

No evidence regarding payment

Suit was filed as an attempt to extend illegal stay in suit house by taking shield of fake/fabricated document having no legal value

Petitioner failed to satisfy that an agreement to sell the suit house by one co-sharer in absence of other co-sharers could validly make out case for transfer of entire un-divided property to another person

No question of the specific performance of the alleged agreement

Petitioner admitted that he was inducted as tenant by making payment of rent for many years

Petitioner could not challenge the title of the landlord without first surrendering the possession to him

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Ownership of party was not an essential condition to create relationship of landlord and tenant.

Report of DNA could not be considered as conclusive proof to establish or discard a relationship between parties as the same was highly cryptic and weak evidence

No reliance could be placed on such report, in presence of documentary and trustworthy oral evidence produced by respondents/plaintiffs

Revisional jurisdiction of High Court under S.115, C.P.C. was invoked by petitioners/defendants and the same could not be pressed into service unless it was a case of jurisdictional defect or the judgment was result of misreading or non-reading of evidence on record

Both the Courts were at variance and conclusion drawn by Lower Appellate Court was correct and based on proper appreciation of evidence produced by both the parties

Lower Appellate Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter brought before it and judgment rendered was based on sound reasoning

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C. declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court as there was no illegality was established on record

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Independent witness being a distant cousin having no personal interest in the property who knew the relationship of the inter se members of the family/parties to the suit, possessed special means of knowledge of the family affairs

Such witness fulfilled the test of Art. 64 of the Qanun-e-Sahadat, 1984.

Pedigree table by itself could not prove the factum of relationship between the parties in absence of any affirmative evidence regarding claim of such relationship.

Actual authority is the legal relationship between principal and agent created by consensual agreement to which they alone are parties.

Agent could not absolve himself of his responsibility to be held accountable to his principal and could not be allowed to dispute the authority of his principal.

Agreements existed between parties according to which plaintiffs were to facilitate sale of goods on behalf of defendant in the market

Effect

Term 'agent' under S. 182 of Contract Act, 1872 was a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings with third person and person for whom such act was done or who was so represented was called 'principal'

Agreements provided that plaintiffs would facilitate sale of sugar on behalf of defendant company in market on due dates (dates on which delivery orders could be presented) at market rates or price

Such facilitation was to be regarded as authority for plaintiffs to represent defendant company in its dealings with third persons for sale of sugar

Such clauses of agreement had brought relationship between the parties within the scope of S.182 of Contract Act, 1872 and there was an "agency" between the parties.

Relationship of master and servant does not mean that in each and every case, recourse should be made only for claim of damages.

Agreements existed between parties according to which plaintiffs were to facilitate sale of goods on behalf of defendant in the market

Effect

Term 'agent' under S. 182 of Contract Act, 1872 was a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings with third person and person for whom such act was done or who was so represented was called 'principal'

Agreements provided that plaintiffs would facilitate sale of sugar on behalf of defendant company in market on due dates (dates on which delivery orders could be presented) at market rates or price

Such facilitation was to be regarded as authority for plaintiffs to represent defendant company in its dealings with third persons for sale of sugar

Such clauses of agreement had brought relationship between the parties within the scope of S.182 of Contract Act, 1872 and there was an "agency" between the parties.

Plaintiffs in suit for declaration and permanent injunction, assailed General Power of Attorney executed in favour of defendant and transfer of property in favour of his son and brothers

Suit and appeal were concurrently decided in favour of plaintiffs by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively

Validity

Once there was transaction of sale, defendants were bound to establish as burden was on attorney to prove that such sale was genuine

No such evidence was produced by defendants who were beneficiaries and were burdened with to prove the fact

Specific allegation was that General Power of Attorney was prepared by committing fraud and on the basis of the same, subsequent mutations of exchange and sale were entered and attested

Findings of two courts below were according to law and evidence produced by parties

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiff corporation handed over stocks of rice to defendant company and the same were accepted by defendant on the basis of 'Book Balance'

Plaintiff alleged that defendant company failed to exercise all care in respect of stocks and sought recovery of cost of deficient stocks and damages

Validity

To constitute effective bailment contract, it was obligatory on the part of bailor to put bailee in possession of the goods

Actual tender and delivery of goods and acceptance thereof by bailee must be there, and must be actual and physical transfer of possession

Merely putting into possession of documents of title did not constitute bailment of goods

Contact was awarded to defendant on 'Book Balance' basis without any physical verification of stock of rice which was lying in godown in dumped position

Such stock could not be assumed that a proper account could be made without physical verification of stock, which was not done, despite various requests and letters by defendant

In the grain handling contract there was inherent risk of diminishing quantity and quality of food grains and ratio of the losses was inversely proportionate to the nature of storage, which could vary from case to case basis

Longer the duration, greater the quantum of losses

Crops in question were related to year 1988-89, handling contract of which was earlier awarded to some other persons and on their failure the left over stocks were entrusted to the defendant through subject contract

Stock in question was lying in the godown of plaintiff in a dumped condition for a considerable period of time

Every possibility existed that stocks in question had diminished quantity and quality due to infestations and other factors

Defendant apprehending such facts informed plaintiff at the very outset of the contract but plaintiff did not pay any heed and took no step to safeguard the stocks to mitigate the losses

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Vesting of said authority and entrusting the exercise thereof to the people, emphasized the principle of self-government as the bedrock of the constitutional framework

By guaranteeing the observance of 'principles of democracy' and mandating that the "State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people" the Constitution instructed that this authority was to be exercised by and through a representative and democratic government

Constitutional Order was framed with an ardent dedication 'to the preservation of democracy' and therefore encapsulated it as one of its core values

Part II and III of the Constitution established and enumerated the powers and manner in which the legislature was to function, which cemented 'democracy' as the chosen system of the people and a fundamental constitutional dictate

Constitutional imperative of 'advancing and protecting Fundamental Rights, as enunciated by Islam, through a democratic system of government' underpinned the operation of the Constitutional Order

Such symbiotic relationship between 'democracy' as a governing system and the objective of 'advancing and protecting Fundamental Rights, as enunciated by Islam' preserved and reinforced both said constitutional dictates as cardinal features of the Constitution.