Find a Lawyer

‑‑S. 115 & O. 111, R. 2‑‑Act of agent‑‑Finding of fact‑‑Exercise of revisional jurisdiction‑‑Both Courts below concurrently concluding that alleged agent of respondents neither being special attorney nor general attorney of respondents had no authority to enter into transaction of sale with petitioner on behalf of respondents‑‑Concurrent finding of two Courts below being based on evidence on record and there being no question as to defective exercise of jurisdiction, no exception, held, could be taken to such finding in revisional jurisdiction.

‑‑‑0. III, R. 2‑‑Acts of agent not duly appointed‑‑Effect on principal‑ Where agent was not duly appointed by principal to do certain acts on his behalf, acts of such agent, held, could not be regarded as binding on principal‑‑Acts of such agent would only be considered binding on principal if he was duly appointed or employed to do such acts on behalf of principal.

Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Petitioner.

This civil revision arises out of a suit instituted by the petitioner against the respondents in the Civil Court at Chiniot for specific performance on the basis of an agreement for the sale of land measuring 8 Marlas and 92 sq. ft. situated in Chah Rodianwali Dakhli Chiniot, District Jhang in consideration of Rs.9,673.53 alleging that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 entered into the said contract with the petitioner through respondent No.5 (Syed Shah Nawaz) who was their Karinda. He received Rs.4,000 as earnest money and handed over the possession of the said land to the petitioner and later on received Rs.2,000. The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 had failed to execute a sale deed as contemplated within the terms of the agreement.

2, The suit was resisted by the respondents. It was maintained by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 that they were neither the owners of the disputed land nor they ever appointed Shah Nawaz (respondent No.5) as their attorney or Karinda, he had no authority from them to enter into the said agreement on their behalf. They had not received any amount from Syed Shah Nawaz (respondent No.5). They had sold the land in dispute to one Imam Bakhsh whereafter they were no longer the owners

3. The learned Civil Judge found the suit as time‑barred, since the agreement to sell was executed on 17‑4‑1974 whereas the suit was instituted on 20‑2‑1979. No weight was attached to an affidavit written by respondent No.5 whereby an attempt had been made to extend the period of limitation. Respondent No.5 had said that he had executed an agreement and the latter document, that he had neither authority nor he was appointed as attorney to dispose of the property belonging to respondents Nos. 1 to 4.

The respondent No.5 as P.W.1 had, according to his statement, entered into an agreement with the petitioner on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4. He admitted that he never sold any other piece of land on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4. As said above he admitted that he was neither special attorney nor General Attorney appointed for the sale of the property in question. He was only an accountant and servant. He had no written permission from respondents Nos. 1 to 4. He admitted that Haji Imam Bakhsh purchased the property situated in Chah Rodianwali. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 had published a proclamation that nobody was authorised on their behalf to dispose of their property. From that the learned Civil Judge concluded that respondent No.5's own statement as P. W.1 accompanied by the position taken up by respondents Nos. l to 4 was sufficient to prove that he was not authorised to enter into an agreement with the petitioner to sell the property in question. The petitioner had failed to substantiate his stand that he validly entered into an agreement with respondents Nos.1 to 4. Since that had been admitted by the petitioner that the agreement was entered with respondent No. 5, he neither had any conversation nor talk with respondents Nos. 1 to 4 directly. As a result of his findings the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit vide his judgment dated 8‑4‑1985.

4. Being aggrieved therefrom the said judgment of the learned Civil Judge dismissing the suit, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge Jhang who while agreeing, after discussion, with the conclusion drawn from the evidence adduced, affirmed the findings of the learned Civil Judge and dismissed the appeal vide his judgment dated 9‑9‑1986.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the conclusions drawn from the evidence adduced by both the Courts below and has maintained that respondent No. 5 was Karinda of respondents Nos.l to 4, his act was binding upon the said respondents as they had also received Rs.6,000 from their Karinda. So, they could be taken as party to agreement to sell.

6. Both the Courts below have discussed the evidence in detail and the conclusion having been arrived at by both the Courts below that respondent No.5 had no authority to go for the transaction as alleged, is quite in keeping with the evidence adduced and there being involved no question as to the defective exercise of jurisdiction, therefore, no exception can be taken to the findings on questions of fact within the scope of section 115, C.P.C. It has not been shown as proved to the satisfaction of both the Courts that an amount of Rs.6,000 was ultimately received by repondents Nos. 1 to 4. The acts of respondent No.5 cannot be regarded as binding on respondents Nos.1 to 4 in the absence of any agency between respondents Nos. l to 4 and respondent No.5 where one can say that the act of an agent is binding upon the principal. A mere Karinda has no authority to bind those whose Karinda he is. As to an agency a strict proof is required that one is employed by another for the purpose of selling the land on his behalf, then one can say that the act being within the scope of the employment having been done by an agent is binding on the principal. This civil revision is dismissed in limine being without any force.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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