Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No.205 of 1977, decided on 4th June, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 1-2-1977 of the ,Lahore High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.73 of 1977).

---S.2--Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.49--Power-of-attorney- Whether a power-of-attorney executed before Sub-Registrar and duly attested by him must be given effect to in all circumstances--Attestation by Sub-Registrar rebuttable in law and it was always to be seen in circumstances of each case as to whether attestation could be implicitly acted upon--Mere fact that document in question was attested by Sub Registrar to be a general power-of-attorney was not conclusive.

Sh. Abdul Manan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 4th June, 1984.

The question was whether a power-of -attorney executed before the Sub-Registrar and duly attested by him must be given effect to in all the circumstances--.

According to the plaintiffs, who were Pardanashin ladies, they executed a special power-of-attorney in favour of their brother, At Muhammad, for proper management of the land. The aforesaid brother, however, sold the land claiming that he held a general power-of-attorney from his sisters, under which he was authorised even to sell the land. The sisters therefore, filed a suit to challenge the sale on the ground that their brother had no authority to sell their land, as they had only executed a special power-of-attorney for the management of the land. The brother, Ata Muhammad, produced a general power-of-attorney allegedly executed before the Sub-Registrar and attested by him.

The Courts below have held that such attestation by the Sub Registrar is rebuttable under the law and it is always to be seen in the circumstances of each case as to whether the attestation can be implicitly acted upon. In this case, the circumstances showed that the sisters had relied upon their real brother for proper administration of their property and for that purpose they intended to give him a special power-of-attorney. He had, by abusing their trust turned it into a general power-of-attorney without their consent and knowledge. Hence, in these circumstances, the mere fact that the document in question was attested by the Sub-Registrar to be a general power-of-attorney was not conclusive. .

We entirely agree.

There is, therefore, no force in this petition which is accordingly, dismissed hereby

M. Z . M. Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.