Power of Attorney

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.

Respondents / defendants claimed their ownership of suit property on the basis of general power of attorney executed in their favour by petitioner / plaintiff in year 1992, registered in year 2004

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently dismissed the suit

Validity

Successor of attorney holder had never mentioned that any delay had been caused in sending the document or that he had received the document of year 1992 in year 2004, therefore, such a delay was unimaginable

Document had wrongly been presented and wrongly allowed to be registered, without any inquiry as to the authenticity of the document or reasons for delay

On the date of registration, petitioner / plaintiff was not staying abroad

Registration of power of attorney conducted in violation of express provisions of Registration Act, 1908, was sufficient to divest the document of its character as a registered instrument

Violation of express provisions of law termed to be an illegality which was discoverable in instrument of registration of the power of attorney

Both the Courts below did not address such illegality

Registered sale deed in favour of respondent / defendant was entirely deriving its validity and authority from the power of attorney which itself was defective, therefore, subsequent sale deed was also illegal and should have been declared ineffective upon the rights of petitioner

Power of attorney clearly mentioned date of 12-5-1992 and when same was being registered on 20-12-2004 i.e. one day before the registration of the sale deed on 21-12-2004 and the vendee accepted such sale he had been really acting as extremely credulous person

Respondent / defendant did not act with due care and caution and he could not be extended benefit of S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Besides, his bona fide in the peculiar circumstances of the case could not be readily inferred

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction decreed the suit in favour of petitioner / plaintiff while setting aside both the judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below being not sustainable

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

It is the choice of the principal to delegate his/her powers for his/her representation in legal proceedings to anyone and the principal may cancel the powers bestowed upon the attorney

Powers of the principal cannot be restricted either by the act of the court or by any other implication.

Such strict interpretation is to be confined to such power of attorney only where the same runs counter to the interest of the principal

Where issue involves accretion of right of the principal, the same may be interpreted to the advantage of the principal.

Power of attorney must be construed strictly as giving only such authority as is conferred expressly or by necessary implication

Power of attorney cannot empower beyond what it really conveys and its contents must be taken into consideration as a whole

Power of attorney only gives that power which is specifically mentioned therein.

Petitioners (decree-holders) were aggrieved of acceptance of the application under S.12(2), C.P.C. filed by respondents, which acceptance was maintained by the Appellate /District Court

Validity

After the death of the principal, the general power of attorney by operation of law becomes redundant and thereafter any transaction made by the said general power of attorney on the basis of said defunct instrument (General Power of Attorney) will be considered as void, illegal and fraudulent in nature

In the present case, all the proceedings (including the arbitration agreement and arbitration decision) were initiated against the dead persons

A suit or proceeding initiated against a dead person are nullity in the eyes of law and such flaw in itself is not a curable defect

Petitioners filed an application under Ss.14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, against a dead person and on behalf of said dead person, his real brother while showing himself as his attorney made conceding statement, which showed collusivety of both the brothers who committed fraud in grabbing the suit land by preparing a fake arbitration agreement and obtaining award from the arbitrator which culminated into making of award as rule of the Court

As the very general power of attorney had been declared as defunct and abated, thus any superstructure built on the basis of the said instrument stood automatically dismantled

Fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings and any edifice so raised on the basis of such fraudulent transaction, stands automatically dismantled

Any ill-gotten gain achieved by fraudster is not liable to be validated under any norms of law

Civil revision, being devoid of any merits, was dismissed with cost throughout.

Power of attorney is an instrument in writing, conferring authority or power by a principal to his attorney to do certain acts in a specific and limited manner

In the disputed general power of attorney, no specific powers were given by the principal/father to his attorney/his son to gift his land to attorney's wife/defendant by clearly specifying the name of donee and the power of attorney was also not clearly indicating/conveying the principal's knowledge, intention and consent for making gift of his land to his attorney's wife/principal's daughter-in-law

Generally an attorney cannot utilize the powers conferred upon him to transfer the property to himself or his kith and kin, without special and specific consent/permission of the principal and in case of gift transaction, more strict conditions have been attached for proving the gift made by an attorney as a valid gift transaction because being voluntary and gratuitous, gift reflects the personal sentiments of love, affection, kindness and compassion of donor for the donee or sometimes sentiments due to personal services rendered by the donee to the donor and personal sentiments of donor/principal cannot be expressed by an attorney on behalf of donor, therefore, the process of making valid gift must preferably be initiated and completed by the donor himself with the exception that the attorney may gift the property on the express permission and instructions of his principal

Strong personal sentiments of donor must necessarily be directly established in gift transaction in clear terms through pleadings and irrefutable evidence because alleged donor had allegedly deprived his daughter/plaintiff from his land

Civil Revision, filed by the defendant, was dismissed, in limine.

If the attorney has performed some "acts" in pursuance of power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him.

Agent transferring the principal's property is obligated to firstly, in case of difficulty (and it will be a case of difficulty if a power of attorney is susceptible to doubt about its interpretation), use all reasonable diligence in communicating with the principal and seeking to obtain his instructions

Secondly, if the agent deals on his own account with the property under the agency, e.g., if he purchases it himself or for his own benefit, he, in his own interest, should obtain the consent of the principal in that behalf after acquainting him with all material circumstances on the subject, failing which the principal is at liberty to repudiate the transaction.

Object and scope of power of attorney must be seen in the light of its recital to ascertain manner of exercise of authority in relation to terms and conditions specified in the instrument

Rule of construction of such document is that special powers contained therein followed by general words are to be construed as limited to what is necessary for the proper exercise of special powers

Where authority is given to do a particular act followed by general words, such authority is deemed to be restricted to what is necessary for purpose of doing the particular act

General words do not confer general power but are limited for the purpose for which the authority is given and are construed for enlarging special powers necessary for the purpose and must be construed so as to include the purpose necessary for effective execution.

Primary purpose of instrument of attorney is to assign or delegate authority of principal to another person as his agent

Main object behind such document is that agent has to act in the name of principal and the principal also purports to rectify all acts and deeds of his agent done by him under the authority conferred through the instrument

Power of attorney can either be general or special but in all circumstances, it must be strictly construed in the light of its recitals to ascertain the manner of exercise of authority in relation to terms and conditions specified in the instrument

When agent has himself interest in the property, which forms subject matter of agency, the agency cannot in absence of an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest.

Eviction of petitioner/tenant was sought by a person holding joint power of attorney executed by two Matwali of the trust

Rent Controller and Lower Appellate Court concurrently passed eviction order

Petitioner/tenant assailed eviction proceedings on the plea that one of the two principals who executed power of attorney had died before filing of rent case

Validity

Current Mutawalis had the authority under Waqfnama to appoint a person to institute proceedings for eviction of petitioner/tenant

It was open to Mutawalis to ratify unauthorized act on the part of attorney, as the defect was curable

Defect had already been impliedly achieved by defending appeal before Lower Appellate Court and proceedings before High Court

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent orders passed by two Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was aggrieved of dismissal of his application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. on the ground that attorney of petitioner did not have any authority to file such application

Validity

Attorney was acting on behalf of principal for his benefit in relation to subject property with clear power to safeguard interest of petitioner

General Power of Attorney had granted powers to the attorney to do all things on behalf of the principal in relation to protecting his rights

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court could not deprive the attorney from exercising his power to file a suit, written statement or, from filing an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., on behalf of his principal

Such interpretation was in the context of facts and circumstances peculiar to the matter of petitioner

Application of rules of interpretation regarding the punctuation slash (/) had different outcomes depending on the facts and circumstances of each case

High Court set aside orders passed by two Courts below and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision on merits after recording of evidence, as the attorney was duly authorized and competent to file application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

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.

Perusal of record revealed that regarding general power of attorney the authority had not been given to general attorney for executing agreement to sell to appellant by original owner

Script of power of attorney did not disclose that she was allowed to perform agreement to sell with someone through the said general power, moreover, in the general power of attorney she was not given power to sell the house or courtyard, whereas, through agreement to sell 10 Marla piece of land along with a concrete house and courtyard were sold in lieu of rupees ten lac (1000000/-rupees)

Report of Patwari revealed that total share of land of original owner and others had 1 kanal 10 marla 2 sarsahi, which had to be divided among four daughters in equal proportions

In such like situation, original owner had made an agreement from her share

As per stance/statement of appellant, the house was stated to be in possession of respondent, hence, it could be said that original owner performed the agreement regarding the house which was not in her possession

As far as the matter of cognovits given by original owner was concerned, respondent was not entitled under law to execute agreement to sell of the land measuring 10 Marlas along with house which was above her original share

If she had given the said cognovits in favour of appellant/plaintiff even then the same had no value in the eye of law

Circumstances established that the court below had not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned judgment and decree, hence, the appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Power of attorney had to be construed strictly as giving only such authority as was conferred expressly or by necessary implication

Power of attorney would only give that power which was specifically mentioned therein and would operate prospectively and not retrospectively

Provisions of Ss. 196, 197 and 199 of the Contract Act, 1872, were an exception to said general rule wherein the principal had been given an option to ratify an act not expressly conferred on the agent and such ratification might be either express or implied

Incidental action of such attorney/agent was binding on the principal only when he would accept, acknowledge or undertake by ratifying the same

Ratification could either be expressed or implied and such (incidental) acts of the agents were ratified by the principal, same would be validated for all legal purposes and would bind the principal and would have the same effect as done/performed by the principal himself

Principal may elect to ratify or to disown such (incidental) acts

Unless the principal gave notice of his dissent to the unauthorized act of the agent within a reasonable time, it would raise the presumption of ratification

When despite having objections relating to the authority of an attorney, the principal continued to recognize the authority of the agent to institute the suit, the same would amount to ratification and the suit would still be a validly instituted suit

Defect in the authority of an agent was a mere irregularity which could be cured.

Suit for possession and perpetual injunction filed by special attorney on behalf of petitioners/principals was decreed by Trial Court

Appeal of respondents was allowed mainly on ground that special attorney had no authority on behalf of plaintiff to institute the suit; that he was not recognized agent of plaintiff that after framing of issues one plaintiff had not attended the Court nor produced any person having authority on his behalf to prove contents of plaint and also failed to appear in witness box

Validity

After institution of suit, respondents filed application for rejection of plaint contending that plaint did not disclose cause of action which was dismissed

Right of respondents to produce documentary evidence was closed due to their continuous absence and they were proceeded ex-parte and Trial Court also decreed the suit ex-parte

Respondents challenged the decree and also moved application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings/decree

Appellate Court allowed appeal and granted the right of hearing to respondents

Respondents moved application for amendment of written statement and sought to introduce new plea to the effect that plaintiff did not give any authority to the special attorney to institute the fresh suit and that he was given authority only to the extent of pending suits which was dismissed by Trial Court

Such objection had not been raised by respondents in their earlier written statement

Respondents had not agitated that plaintiff did not give any power of attorney to said special attorney, so no specific issue was framed in that regard

Said attorney appeared as witness and produced/exhibited special power of attorney which was brought on record without any objection from respondents

Special power of attorney showed that by giving authority to his agent with regard to pending suits, plaintiff also empowered him to initiate any legal proceedings

Plaintiff never objected to the action taken by his special attorney

Such a long silence of plaintiff for such a considerable time amounted to ratification of the acts which had been taken by his agent

Revision petition was allowed accordingly.

Presumption as to authenticity/genuineness of power of attorney has been attached to a document that was purporting to be a power of attorney and have been executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public/Court / Judge/Magistrate/Consulate/representative of Federal Government, was so executed/authenticated

Article 95 is mandatory in nature and Court is required to presume that all necessary requirements for the proper execution of the Power of Attorney have been duly fulfilled.

If an attorney intends to exercise right of sale/gift in his favour or in favour of next of his kin, he/she has to consult the principal before exercising that right

If an attorney on the basis of power of attorney, even if "general", purchases the property for himself or for his own benefit, he should firstly obtain the consent and approval of principal after acquainting him with all the material circumstances.

Power of attorney is a legal authorization that gives a designated person a written sanction and endorsement to stand in for or act on another's behalf in different events, businesses or legal matters having fiduciary relationship with the principal, being responsible to manage the affairs in terms of powers vested in the indenture and execute all necessary legal or other business related and/or personal documents in line with this authority

Principal may allow an agent to handle a variety of activities including the execution of contracts, dealing with property affairs, overseeing and governing financial affairs and managing and supervising diverse or multiple accomplishments

Principal may revoke or cancel the power of attorney at any time unless it is with consideration.

Dialect and phraseology of power of attorney should be construed strictly and sternly.

Documentary evidence, particularly for a registered document, enfolds a presumption of truth and genuineness and such presumption of truth is attached to the registered power of attorney which is admissible unless its genuineness is suspected and proved to be counterfeited or deceptive; its admissibility cannot be doubted to impede the agent from acting on behalf of principal unless the indenture of power of attorney is controverted and repudiated with satisfactory evidence.

In the present case, the agent by exercising the authority conferred upon him, had transferred the property in question by way of a purported gift deed, in the name of his son (the petitioner), without first disclosing all the material facts and getting permission or consent of the principal

Mutation of the property was effected in the name of the petitioner on 4.9.2012, whereas, the principal had revoked the power of attorney on 5.9.2012, which shows that the principal was no more willing for the agent to continue as his agent

No evidence was available to prove that before entering into the transaction, the agent ever informed the principal in this behalf

Since there was dishonest concealment of material facts, therefore, it resulted into a conflict of interest, as such, the dealing was disadvantageous to the right and interest of the principal

Under such circumstances, the transfer of the property by the agent in the name of his son was a classic example of misconduct and misuse of authority by an agent

Transaction in respect of the plot in question effected between the agent and his son (the petitioner) had rightly been repudiated at the request of the principal

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Agent dealing on his own account without principal's consent and without acquainting him with all material circumstances

Right of principal to repudiate such transaction explained.

Father of plaintiffs, acting as an attorney for an old illiterate village lady, transferred her land (suit land) to the plaintiffs through a purported oral sale mutation

Legality

Purported vendor was an old illiterate village dweller, with ill health; she was not able to even move on her own, and had been carried to the Registrar's office for the execution of the power of attorney by someone

Plaintiffs' father i.e. the purported attorney, while deposing before the Trial Court, also has not denied the suggestion that she was a pardanashin lady; it was not even pleaded that she received any independent advice and/or that contents of the power of attorney were read over and explained to her before she executed it

Stance of the lady throughout had been that she appointed the plaintiffs' father, who was her tenant in occupation, as her attorney, merely to manage the affairs of her land and for nothing more, and therefore, given the status of the lady, it was imperative for the plaintiffs to have demonstrated and proved that at the time of the execution of the power of attorney, she was fully conscious of the fact that the document also contained power to sell and that the entire document was read out and explained to her fully and truly, and further that she executed it under an independent advice

Plaintiffs also had to prove that the lady was fully aware and conscious of the consequences and implications of executing the said document

However neither did they prove, nor even pleaded any of it, therefore, it could not be held that plaintiffs' father was in fact authorized by the lady to sell the suit land

Attorney could not lawfully make transfer of a property under agency in his own name, or for his benefit, or in favour of his associates, without explicit consent of the principal, and in the event he did so, the principal, under the mandate of section 215 of the Contract Act, 1872 had a right to repudiate such transaction

In any case the power of attorney, whatever its worth was admittedly revoked by the lady through revocation deed dated 05-9-1974, thus on 14.10.1974, the date on which plaintiffs' father purportedly transferred the suit land, he no more remained attorney of the lady, and stood denuded of whatever power he purportedly enjoyed thereunder

Transfer of the suit land by plaintiffs' father was without authority and was of no legal effect, thus, the same was rightly annulled by the revenue authorities

Appeal was dismissed.

Power of attorney must be strictly construed and proved, and must be strictly interpreted to ascertain the authority of the agent, acting on behalf of the principal.

Power of attorney is a document which creates financial liabilities, as such, is to be attested by at least two witnesses and proved by evidence of attesting witnesses as required under Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Power of attorney confers only those powers which are specified therein and in case power of attorney creates any right, title or interest in immovable property, then it should be compulsorily registered as per law.

Gift was a personal action which could be performed by the owner himself only and for that reason the agent could not, on his own, transfer the immovable property of the principal/owner through gift based on any power of attorney, even if the power of attorney contained the power to transfer the property through gift

Such powers could only be used for completion of codal formalities of the gift which must be by the owner himself and if on the contrary a transfer was made, it would be invalid.

For a valid Power of Attorney, it must expressly provide with particulars, not only the scope and extent of delegated power, but also the subject matter of delegation

Attorney could not assert any inherent or implied powers

Power of Attorney must clearly set out the purpose for which the same was executed

In cases, where such power was not clear and there was a 'special' and 'general' authority stipulated therein, then the 'general' powers following the 'special' power were to be construed as limited to what was necessary for the proper exercise of 'special' powers

Similarly, where the authority was given to do a particular act followed by general words, the authority was deemed to be restricted to what was necessary for the purpose of doing that particular act.

Such lis was not further proceedable as such flaw was incurable in nature.

Objection of the respondent was that the power of attorney, annexed/placed on record by the petitioners before the High Court, was not in respect of civil revision-in-hand but he (attorney) was authorized to the extent/purposes of civil suit only

Held, record revealed that Attorney was appointed by the petitioners purportedly after the demise of their father (original defendant/owner of the suit-property)

Deed of power of attorney stipulated that petitioners had appointed their special attorney for them in the case while mentioning title of the civil suit

Proceedings of appeal and revision, in the present case, were apparently in continuation of the civil suit and the word "case" would not only include the civil suit but the adjudication of the case even thereafter

If the attorney was acting in support of the executants preserving their interests and where the executants had not come forward to object/dispute the authority so conferred, then the presumption would be that the attorney was competent to act in the interest of the executants

High Court dismissed the objection raised by the respondent and held that a competent person had filed revision petition on the behalf of the petitioners.

Power of attorney was an instrument in writing whereby one person, as principal, appointed another as his agent and conferred authority for performance of certain specified acts or kinds of act on behalf of such principal

Power of attorney was therefore a delegation of authority in writing by which one person was empowered to do an act in name of the other and, such person who acted on behalf of another person (the principal), by his authority, was called an agent, and relation between such agent and principal was called "agency".

While interpreting contents of a power of attorney, acts done by attorney in furtherance to a main purpose for which said power of attorney had been issued and which acts were for benefit of principal; the same may be protected and considered as valid irrespective of fact that such authority or power was not specifically mentioned in such a power of attorney.

Language of Power of Attorney must be strictly construed.

Defendants had terminated the agency and alienation of suit land through sanction of mutation, was neither justified nor valid

Agent was aware of condition as well as withdrawal of his authority

Present suit had been filed after four years and five months which was time-barred

Courts below had failed to appreciate the material available on record in its true perspective

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside and suit was dismissed

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Court while interpreting and examining such Power of Attorneys, had to keep in mind the distinguishing features as these Power of Attorneys were only in respect of facilitating the law firms operating in the entire country

Such Power of Attorneys were by no means affording any rights in respect of any property or ownership, and they were for specific purposes and were to be construed accordingly.

While interpreting the contents of a power of attorney, the acts done by the attorney in furtherance to the main purpose for which the power of attorney had been issued, and which were for the benefit of the principal, the same were to be protected and may be considered as valid irrespective of the fact that such authority or power was not specifically mentioned in such Power of Attorney

However, if the acts performed by the attorney were detrimental or against the interest of principal, then the same had to be strictly construed and in such exceptional cases exercise of power by the Attorney would not be considered as valid.

Petitioners contended that counsel appointed by their father had not recorded statement on behalf of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners but by some other counsel

Validity

Power of attorney executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners reflected that the counsel so appointed had the authority to further delegate his powers to any other counsel for prosecuting the appeal on behalf of his client which left no ambiguity that counsel who gave the statement was duly appointed counsel and his statement was binding upon the petitioners

Order III, R.4, C.P.C. stipulated that pleader duly appointed by the party could delegate his powers to another pleader to act on his behalf in the court

Petitioners were thus precluded to wriggle out of statement recorded by their duly appointed counsel before the court

Presumption of truth was attached to the judicial proceedings in terms of Art. 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Party was bound by the statement of its counsel, unless there was anything contrary in the power-of-attorney placing restriction on the authority of the counsel to compromise or abandon the claim on behalf of his client

Petitioners remained quiet for a considerable period and after the death of their father moved the application under S.12(2), C.P.C. which was clearly based on ulterior motive

District Court was justified to dismiss such frivolous application in limine

Decision of application under S. 12(2) of C.P.C. in a cursory manner without framing of issues was not prohibited under the law; it was dependent upon the judicial conscious of the court to frame issues or to proceed with such an application without framing of any issue and decide the same summarily

No hard and fast rule could be made for the said purpose

No infirmity was noticed in the procedure adopted by the court below to decide the application under S.12(2), C.P.C.

High Court observed that frivolous application was moved by the petitioners to stifle the process of the court and to undermine the sanctity attached to the judicial proceedings and imposed cost of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioners

Revision was dismissed accordingly.

Filing of Constitutional petition through attorney seeking equitable and extraordinary relief of quashing of FIR by persons living abroad was alien to law.

When a company incorporated abroad, having a place of its business in Pakistan has to invoke jurisdiction of Court in Pakistan on an emergent basis, in such circumstances, asking such foreign entity to have a power of attorney or Board resolution notarized and attested in foreign country and then file such document along with petition or suit instituted in Pakistan would be unreasonable and inequitable

As long as the pleadings showed that legal proceedings are being instituted with proper authorization/authority and that during proceedings such authorization/authority, obtained prior to the institution of proceedings but notarized and consularized subsequently, is brought on record, such proceedings cannot be considered to have been wrongfully instituted.

Power of attorney is to be construed strictly in accordance with its contents and nothing which was not expressly provided therein could be read into it

Power of attorney is not open to liberal interpretation

For a power of attorney to sustain presumption under Art. 95 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, execution of the same has to be authenticated by Pakistani diplomatic mission in the country where the power of attorney is executed.

Attorney could not be held to be personally liable for the principal's debts unless there was specific provision to that effect in the power of attorney.

When a company incorporated abroad, having a place of its business in Pakistan, has to invoke jurisdiction of Court in Pakistan on an emergent basis, in such circumstances, asking such foreign entity to have a power of attorney or a Board resolution notarized and attested in foreign country and then file such document along with petition or suit instituted in Pakistan would be unreasonable and inequitable

As long as the pleadings showed that legal proceedings are being instituted with proper authorization/authority and that during proceedings such authorization/authority, obtained prior to the institution of proceedings but notarized and consularized subsequently, is brought on record, such proceedings cannot be considered to have been wrongfully instituted.

Power of attorney is to be construed strictly in accordance with its contents and nothing which was not expressly provided therein could be read into it

Power of attorney is not open to liberal interpretation

For a power of attorney to sustain presumption under Art. 95 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, execution of the same has to be authenticated by Pakistani Diplomatic Mission in the country where the power of attorney is executed.

Power of attorney should be interpreted strictly.

Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court but first Appellate Court decreed the same and High Court restored the judgment of Trial Court

Validity

When document which went to the roots of the controversy was not proved to be a valid then whole structure built on that document would automatically fall

For proving the execution of a document it was essential that two attesting witnesses of the same appeared before the Court and stated that document was executed by the executant in their presence and executant had signed the said document in their presence and they identified the signatures

Only one marginal witness of power of attorney had appeared before the Court in the present case

Contents of power of attorney were not proved through cogent and reliable evidence in circumstances

Beneficiary i.e. attorney had not himself appeared in the witness box to prove the document on the strength of which whole transaction was made

Two attesting witnesses of the deed should have been produced to prove the same

Power of attorney had rightly been declared to have not been proved by the first Appellate Court

Attorney had exercised power to alienate property without prior permission of the principal

Agent on the strength of power of attorney could not transfer the land to his kith and kin without prior permission of principal

Transfer of land on the basis of power of attorney without prior permission of principal was illegal in circumstances

No validity could be given to the sale deed which was executed on the strength of power of attorney whose execution was not proved in accordance with law

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court were set aside and judgment and decree of first Appellate Court were restored

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Power of attorney should be construed strictly.

Compromise decree passed by the Appellate Court to the extent of the share of principal was nullity and not maintainable

When defendant had alienated land during pendency of suit, he did not remain owner of the property

Defendant after alienating the land could not compromise the matter

Compromise decree on such score was not maintainable

Person who was not party in a compromise could validly challenge the compromise decree

Pro forma respondent had not accepted the compromise which was against his interest

Appeal, in circumstances, was competent before the High Court

Appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court.

Defendants being beneficiaries of gifts were required to establish valid gift by proving offer, acceptance and delivery of possession

Impugned mutations were not entered on the instructions of donor (principal) rather same were entered by the attorney and later on attested in absence of donor (Principal)

Conditions required for a valid gift were lacking in the present case

Alleged gifts were invalid which did not create any right in favour of donees

Power-of-attorney contained so many deeds to be performed by the attorney

Attorney before transferring the suit property in favour of his kith and kins was required to have fresh instructions from the principal

Gift was a personal act of donor which could only be performed by himself and none else

Alleged transaction had become suspicious as donor had not gifted the suit property himself

If agent had failed to do so then principal could repudiate the transaction so entered by his agent without obtaining his consent which was disadvantageous to him

General power of attorney contained numerous events for which principal had authorized the attorney including transfer of property

Power of attorney was not specific for the purpose for which it had been used by the attorney

Principal even if had given the authority to gift his property yet there was no reference that it should be gifted to the beneficiaries of the suit mutations and that too after long period of 17/18 years

Principal should have been consulted and permission should have been sought for the gift after delay and passage of such a long time

Power of attorney was executed on 27-03-1984

If intention of principal was to gift his property to the beneficiaries of suit mutations, the same would have been gifted in 1984

Purpose of power-of-attorney was not to gift the suit property

Attorney had used the power of attorney for personal gains

Appellate Court had fallen in error in appreciation of evidence for setting aside the well reasoned judgment of Trial Court

Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court was based on mis-reading and non-reading of evidence which was set aside

Suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed as prayed for

Revision was allowed in circumstances.