Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 4099
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi)
Parties: Haider Aftab & 2 others vs Dilawar Khan (deceased) through LRs etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi), officially reported as 2026 LHC 4099. In this matter between Haider Aftab & 2 others and Dilawar Khan (deceased) through LRs etc, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi) DECISION DATE: 24-06-2026 CASE DETAILS: Civil Revision 31616/25 ============================================================ Stereo. H C J D A-38. JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Civil Revision No.31616 of 2025 Haider Aftab & others Versus Dilawar Khan (deceased) through Legal Heirs & others
J U D G M E N T Date of hearing: 24.06.2026. Petitioners by: Mr. Muhammad Safdar Shaheen Gill , Advocate.
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J .- This consolidated judgment shall dispose of instant revision petition along with connected revision petition i.e. C.R. No s.31617 of 202 5 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. 2. These civil revision petitions call in question the legality and propriety of the consolidated judgments and decrees dated 22.06.2023 and 20.02.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Narowal, respectively, whereby the suit for declaration along with permanent and mandatory injunction instituted by Dilawar Khan was concurrently decreed, declaring the General Power of Attorney dated 08.02.2010 and the agreement to sell dated 09.02.2010 executed on its basis to be the result of fraud and misrepresentation and of no legal effect upon the rights of the plaintiff, whereas the connected suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell instituted by Javed Hayat Bajwa (now represent ed through his legal heirs) was concurrently dismissed. 3. Briefly stated, respondent Dilawar Khan instituted a suit for declaration, asserting that the General Power of Attorney dated 08.02.2010, allegedly obtained by Aftab Ahmad, had been misused by executing a registered agreement to sell dated 09.02.2010 in favour of his brother -in-law, Javed Hayat Bajwa, without his knowledge or consent. He, therefore, sought declaration that both documents were 2 C.R. No.31616 of 2025 & connected case illegal, void and ineffective against his rights. On the other hand, Javed Hayat Bajwa instituted a suit for specific performance of the said agreement, claiming that it had been validly executed through the General Power of Attorney after payment of substantial sale consideration. Both suits were consolidated. Upon framing issues and recording evidence, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit for declaration and dismissed the suit for specific performance vide consolidated judgment & decree dated 22.06.2023 , which findings were subsequently affirmed by the learned Appellate Court through the impugned consolidated judgment and decree dated 20.02.2025. Hence, these revision petitions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the learned Courts below have gravely erred in law by disregarding the legal effect of the registered General Power of Attorney dated 08.02.2010 and the registered agreement to sell dated 09.02.2010, despite the admitted execution of the former and the statutory presumption attached to registered documents. He submits that the respondents failed to prove the plea of fraud through cogent and convincing evidence, whereas the petitioners successfully established the agreement, payment of substantial sale consideration and delivery of possession through reliable oral and documentar y evidence. He further argue s that the learned Courts below wrongly relied upon Exh.P7 (Dastawaiz Yadasht) , which neither formed part of the pleadings nor was proved in accordance with law, thereby vitiating the findings recorded against the petitioners. He further contends that the Trial Court erroneously shifted the burden of proof upon the petitioners to prove the contents of the registered General Power of Attorney, while ignoring the legal presumptions attached thereto and the settled principles governing proof of fraud. Lastly, he argues that the learned Appellate Court failed to independently reappraise the evidence as the final Court of facts and mechanically affirmed the findings of the Trial Court despite apparent misreading and non -reading of mate rial evidence, thus warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 3 C.R. No.31616 of 2025 & connected case 5. Arguments heard. Available record perused. 6. The record reveals that Dilawar Khan, admittedly the owner of the suit property, executed a registered Ge neral Power of Attorney dated 08.02.2010 in favour of Aftab Ahmad. On the very next day, i.e., 09.02.2010, Aftab Ahmad, acting as attorney, executed a registered agreement to sell in favour of Javed Hayat Bajwa, who admittedly happened to be his brother -in-law. According to the petitioners, a substantial portion of the sale consideration amounting to Rs.22,00,000/- stood paid, leaving only Rs.3,00,000/ - payable at the time of execution of the sale deed. Dilawar Khan, however, asserted that the authority conferred through the General Power of Attorney had been obtained by misrepresentation, that he never intended to authorize transfer of the suit property in favour of the attorney's close relative, and that immediately upon learning of the transaction he revo ked the General Power of Attorney on 12.02.2010 and instituted the declaratory suit on 13.02.2010 challenging both the General Power of Attorney and the agreement to sell. 7. The controversy in these revisions is twofold: firstly, whether Aftab Ahmad, acti ng under the General Power of Attorney dated 08.02.2010, was legally competent to execute the agreement to sell dated 09.02.2010 in favour of his brother -in-law, Javed Hayat Bajwa; and secondly, whether the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below s uffer from any jurisdictional defect, material illegality, or misreading/non-reading of evidence warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. 8. The learned Appellate Court while independently reapprais ing the evidence, rightly examined not only the allegation of fraud, but also the legality and scope of the authority while executing the agreement to sell in favour of his close relative. 9. It is a settled principle of law that an attorney occupies a fiduciary position and is bound to exercise the a uthority delegated to him solely for the benefit of the principal. An attorney cannot lawfully transfer the property of the principal either to himself or to his kith and kin without the prior knowledge, consent or specific authorization of 4 C.R. No.31616 of 2025 & connected case the principal. Such self -serving transactions invite strict judicial scrutiny because they inherently involve a conflict between personal interest and fiduciary duty. Reference may be made to Allah Bakhsh (deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Riaz and others (PLD 2025 Supreme Court 63) , Muhammad Arshad and 2 others v. Haq Nawaz and 9 others (2019 YLR 958), Muhammad Anwar v. Mst. Bahrawar Sultana and others (2021 CLC 1707) , and Muhammad Mansha and others v. Saleem Bibi (2026 MLD 320). 10. Needless to observe, a G eneral Power of Attorney, however widely worded, does not by itself authorize the attorney to alienate the principal's property in favour of himself or his close relatives. The beneficiary of such a transaction bears a heavy burden to establish that the pr incipal had expressly authorized, or subsequently ratified with full knowledge, the transaction and that the same was bona fide and free from conflict of interest. Neither the General Power of Attorney nor the pleadings or evidence disclose any express authority permitting Aftab Ahmad to transfer the suit property in favour of his own brother - in-law. The defence is conspicuously silent regarding the time, place or manner in which such consent was obtained. A general authority to sell cannot be equated with authority to enter into a transaction involving self-dealing. 11. The subsequent conduct of the parties further supports the respondents' case. The General Power of Attorney was executed on 08.02.2010, the agreement to sell followed on 09.02.2010, the authority was revoked on 12.02.2010 and the declaratory suit was instituted on 13.02.2010. Such prompt repudiation is wholly inconsistent with the suggestion that Dilawar Khan had consented to or ratified the transaction. 12. The petitioners' reliance upon th e registration of the General Power of Attorney and the agreement to sell is misconceived. Registration merely raises a rebuttable presumption regarding the due execution of an instrument; it neither enlarges the authority conferred upon an attorney nor va lidates a transaction beyond the scope of such authority. Likewise, mere execution or registration of documents, or 5 C.R. No.31616 of 2025 & connected case incorporation of mutation entries, does not by itself establish a valid transfer unless the underlying transaction satisfies the legal requirements governing fiduciary dealings. A registered instrument cannot sanctify an otherwise unauthorized or legally impermissible transaction. The learned Appellate Court, therefore, rightly sustained the decree of the learned Trial Court on the independent and legally sustainable ground that Aftab Ahmad lacked any specific authority to alienate the suit property in favour of his own brother-in-law. 13. The contention that fraud was not strictly proved also does not advance the petitioners' case. Even if the execution of the General Power of Attorney itself is accepted, the surrounding circumstances clearly establish abuse of fiduciary authority. The impugned decrees substantially rest upon unauthorized exercise of delegated powers rather than fraud in the execution of the document itself. The challenge to Exh.P7 (Dastawaiz Yadasht) is likewise inconsequential. Even if the said document is excluded from consideration, the impugned judgments remain sustainable on the independent grounds of absence of specific a uthority, breach of fiduciary obligation, contradictory defence evidence, prompt revocation of the authority, and the conduct of the parties. 14. The petitioners' own evidence is also materially inconsistent. Their witnesses contradicted each other regardi ng the presence of Dilawar Khan at the time of execution, the payment of consideration, and the amounts allegedly paid. Similar inconsistencies appear between the written statement and the subsequent suit for specific performance. These contradictions mate rially impair the credibility of the defence. Equally significant is the conduct of Javed Hayat Bajwa. Despite immediate knowledge of the dispute and the contractual period of two months for execution of the sale deed, he remained inactive for almost nine years and instituted the suit for specific performance only after the death of Aftab Ahmad. This prolonged and unexplained delay is wholly inconsistent with the continuous readiness and willingness required for the equitable relief of specific performance. 6 C.R. No.31616 of 2025 & connected case 15. Specific performance is a discretionary and equitable remedy. Even where execution of an agreement is established, the Court must examine the authority of the executant, the fairness of the transaction, the conduct of the parties and the surrounding c ircumstances. In the present case, the transaction originated from an attorney dealing with the principal's property in favour of his own close relative without establishing specific authority, while the vendee remained dormant for years. The refusal of sp ecific performance by the Courts below, therefore, calls for no interference. 16. Even if certain observations recorded by the learned Trial Court regarding fraud or Exh.P7 are excluded from consideration, the ultimate conclusions recorded by both the Cour ts below remain legally sustainable. The learned Appellate Court independently reappraised the evidence and rightly concluded that the petitioners failed to establish any specific authority enabling the attorney to alienate the suit property in favour of h is brother -in-law. The contradictions in the petitioners' own evidence, the absence of proof of prior consent, the unexplained delay in seeking enforcement of the agreement, and the settled prohibition against self -dealing by an attorney fully support the concurrent findings. 17. Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C. is supervisory and not appellate. Interference is permissible only where the impugned judgments suffer from jurisdictional error, patent illegality, material irregularity, or findings based on misreading or non-reading of material evidence. No such defect has been demonstrated in the present case. Reliance is placed upon Abdul Hakeem v. Habibullah and 11 others (1997 SCMR 1139) , Nasir Ali v. Muhammad Asghar (2022 SCMR 1054) and Mst. Farzana Zia and others v. Mst. Saadia Andaleeb and others (2024 SCMR 916). 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect, material illegality, perversity, or misreading/non - reading of evidence warranting interfer ence in revisional jurisdiction. The precedents relied upon by him are distinguishable on facts and do not advance the petitioners' case. 7 C.R. No.31616 of 2025 & connected case 19. Consequently, these civil revision petitions, being devoid of merit, are dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi) Judge
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
Judge *A.H.S.*