Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.900 of 1980, decided on 15th August, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 5‑2‑1980 in W.P.No.134/R of 1973).

‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10‑‑Transfer of property through association as approved by Settlement authorities‑‑Petitioner challenging such transfer at belated stage on ground that agent had acted fraudulently and in excess of authority‑‑Record indicating petitioner's acquiescence‑‑Factual controversy not permitted to be .raised‑‑Leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.

Syed Abid Nawaz Abid, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing‑: 15th August, 1984.

,‑ This petition calls in question judgment dated 5‑2‑1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a settlement case, filed by Barkat Ali predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners was dismissed.

The petitioner was the transferee of the unit in dispute of evacuee property. He executed a power‑of‑attorney on 4‑3‑1970 in favour of Mirza Muhammad Masud respondent No.5 with specific stipulation to the effect that Mirza Muhammad Masud could get the transfer documents in favour of the petitioner completed in the Settlement Department and also that after doing the needful in this behalf the property in dispute could be sold, mortgaged or exchanged by him (the attorney). Through an agreement of association dated 4‑4‑1970 Mirza Muhammad Masud the attorney transferred the property in favour of Abrar Hussain respondent No.4. It was duly approved by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 13‑4‑1370. Barkat Ali cancelled the power‑of‑attorney on 5‑5‑1970 and later on unsuccessfully challenged the transfer through association in favour of Abrar Hussain. His successors‑in‑interest have now sought leave to appeal.

The execution of the power‑of‑attorney dated 4‑3‑1970 is not denied. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the agent acted fraudulently and also in excess of authority.

After hearing the learned counsel we feel that the power‑of attorney having been acted upon through an association which was approved by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner, it was too late for Barkat Ali to challenge the transfer in favour of Abrar Hussain. A learned Single Judge who examined the record in the High Court found that the thumb‑impression on a receipt of Rs.6.000 in connection with the transaction in dispute, executed by Barkat Ali himself "ex facie" appeared to have been thumb‑marked by Barkat Ali. This observation was made after comparing the disputed thumb‑impression with the admitted thumb‑impressions. In these circumstances the case relates to a factual controversy, which cannot now be permitted to be raised. This petition accordingly is dismissed.

M.I. 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.