Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 283. In this matter between Const. P. 6089/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Abdul Majeed (Thr. Attorney M. Faisal) (Petitioner) and the Respondent, 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.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 6089/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2026 SHC KHI 283 PARTIES: Abdul Majeed (Thr. Attorney M. Faisal) (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 02-FEB-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI C.P. No.D-6089 of 2025 (Abdul Majeed versus Jawed Hameed & others) _________________________________________________________________ Date Order with signature of Judge _________________________________________________________________

Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi

Date of hearing and order:- 02.02.2026

Mr. Sardar Abdul Hameed advocate for the petitioner M/s. Umair Usman & Shahmeer Memon advocate for respondents No. 1 to 6 Mr. Ali Safdar Depar AAG, along with Ms. Humaira Jatoi, advocate. ------------------------- O R D E R Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J . – The petitioner Abdul Majeed h as filed the captioned Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, with the following prayer: -

a. To admit the appeal for hearing and after hearing set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 7 th December, 2023 , and remanded the case to the learned trial court for decision of the same in accordance with law and facts, not on the technicalities.

b. To call R&P of Society Suit No.1287/2021 from the Court of 5 th Senior Civil Judge (West) at Karachi / Special Court of Co -Operative Societies Karachi , after hearing both parties set -aside impugned judgment and decree dated 7 th December 2023, and the suit may be dismissed.

c. Award cost to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 07.12.2023 , passed by the learned V -Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (West) / Special Court for Co -operative Societies , is illegal, void, perverse, and liable to be set aside. It was argued that the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and denied the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing, particularly by closing the petitioner’s side without allowing complete cross -examination and by dismissing applications for recall, production of d ocuments, and hastily summoning of witnesses . Learned counsel further submitted that the General Power of Attorney was validly executed by the deceased during her lifetime and was never lawfully revoked in accordance with law, as mere publication in a news paper does not constitute a valid revocation. Consequently, the sale deed executed on the basis of such Power of Attorney was lawful and could not have been cancelled. It was also argued that the learned trial Court misread the evidence, ignored material contradictions in the plaintiffs’ case, and passed the judgment without applying proper judicial mind. Learned counsel submitted that the private respondents filed the subject civil suit seeking a declaration that the acts and conduct of the petitioner and others were illegal,

2

unlawful, and malafide, aimed at usurping Plot No.301, Category B -1, measuring 520 square yards, situated in Sindh Baloch Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Karachi East, left by their deceased mother, Mst. Jamila Khatoon. They furth er sought a declaration that the General Power of Attorney dated 01 -02-2018 stood cancelled upon its publication in the daily Aman on 01 -11-2018 and ceased to have legal effect upon the death of Mst. Jamila Khatoon on 11-01-2020, rendering the registered s ale deed dated 25 -06-2019 in favour of the petitioner Abdul Majeed null, void ab initio, and without lawful sanctity. Cancellation of the sale deed, declaration of their entitlement to due shares, and transfer/mutation of the suit property in their favour as legal heirs were also prayed for. An excerpt of the relief sought in the Society Suit No.1287 of 2021 (Old Civil Suit No.625 of 2020) is as follows: - a) To declare the acts of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to be illegal based upon malafide in order to usurp the entire property and to deprive the Plaintiffs of their due share in the Suit Property, viz. Plot bearing No.301 category B -1, measuring 520 Square yards , situated in Sindh Baloch CHS, Naclass No.166 and 210, Deh Sofara, Tapo Gadap, K arachi East, left by deceased Mst. Jamila Khatoon; b) To declare that on publication in the Newspaper Daily Aman, [Karachi] dated 1 st November 2018, about the cancellation/ revocation and particularly on the death of Mst. Jamila Khatoon , on the 11 th January, 2020, the General power of attorney registered under No.292 dated 01 -02-2018, Sub -Registrar-II, Gulshan -e-Iqbal, executed by Jamila Khatoon in respect of the Suit Property, and lost its legal validity. Also declare the registered sale deed RD# 4965 da ted 25 -06-2019 executed by the Defendant No.1 in favor of the Defendant No.2 Abdul Majeed on the basis of cancelled/revoked and invalid general power of attorney, to be null, void ab initio , having no legal sanctity in the eyes of law; c) To cancel and direct the Defendant No.4 to treat as cancelled the registered sale deed bearing RD# 4965 dated 25 -06-2019 in respect of Suit Property executed by the Defendant No.1 Amjad Hameed in favor of the Defendant No.2 Abdul Majeed on the basis of cancelled/revoked and legally invalid generally power of attorney registered under No.292 dated 01-02-2018, Sub-Registrar-II, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi; d) Declaration to the effect that the Plaintiffs are entitled to get their due shares in property bearing No.301 categ ory B -1, measuring 520 Square yards situated in Sindh Baloch Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Naclass No.166 and 210, Deh Sofara, Tapo Gadap, Karachi East, left by their deceased mother, Mst. Jamila Khatoon; e) To direct the Defendant No.3 to transfer/mutate said bearing No.301 category B-1, measuring 520 Square yards situated in Sindh Baloch CHS Naclass No.166 and 210, Deh Sofara, Tapo Gadap, Karachi , in favor of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 being the only surviving legal heirs of deceased Mst. Jamila Khatoon; f) Permanent and mandatory injunction may be granted to the Plaintiffs directing that the Defendants particularly may not disposes the Plaintiffs nor transfer sell mortgaged or dispose of the said Plot bearing No.301 category B -1, measuring 520 Square yards situated in Sindh Baloch Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Naclass No.166 and 210, Deh Sofara, Tapo Gadap, Karachi East in any manner whatsoever to any other person(s) through themselves, their agents men attorney or any

3

law enforcing agency directly or indirectly expressly or impliedly in any manner without due process of law; 3. It was lastly contended that the learned Special Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, which was initially tried by a court of plenary jurisdiction and later transferred pursuan t to the judgment of this Court . In support of his contention, he relied upon the cases of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council & others v Muhammad Fahad Malik & others 2018 SCMR 1956, Muhammad Fahad Malik v Pakistan Medical and Dental Council & others 2018 PLD 75 , Gokaraju Rangaraju Etc. v State of Andhra Pradesh 1981 AIR 1473 , Jawaid Iqbal v Khawaja Muhammad Arif 1999 SCMR 13 , Abdul Karim Brohi v The State 2005 PLD 498 , Lt. Col. Farzan dali & others v Province of West Pakistan & others 1970 PLD 98 , Atlas Autos Limited and others v National Industrial Relations Commissions Islamabad and others 1999 PLD 362 and Abdul Salam Qureshi and another‟s v Judge Special Court of Banking for Sindh and another 1984 PLD 462. He prayed to allow this petition by remitting the matter to the trial court for decision after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Conversely, learned AAG assisted by the learned counsel for the respondents s upported the impugned Judgment and Decree and argued that the Co-operative Society Court was fully competent to adjudicate the matter. It was submitted that under Sections 73 and 117 of the Sindh Co-operative Societies Act, 2020, read with Rule 53 of the S indh Co -operative Societies Rules, 2020, the Special Court is empowered under the Sindh Co -operative Societies Act and Rules to decide civil disputes relating to immovable property situated within a registered co-operative society. Reliance was placed on authoritative judgments, including Muhammad Dawood v. Mst. Sakeen a Farooque alias Aziza 2025 SCMR 1229, and Naseem Fatima Zaidi v. Government of Sindh & others, passed in Miscellaneous. Appeal No.52 of 2025, wherein the jurisdiction of Co-operative Society Courts over civil disputes was upheld. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondents also argued that the suit was initially instituted before a competent civil Court and was later transferred to the Special Court dealing with society matters, pursuant to a statutory notification and order passed by this Court in the case of Syed Muhammad Kazim, as discussed supra, without any fault on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the respondents cannot be made to suffer due to an act of the Court, if any, in view of the settled principle actus curiae neminem gravabit. It was also contended that the petitioner, having participated in the proceedings without objection and led evidence, is estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the Special Court dealing with society suits as per law, after an adverse decision. Additionally, the impugned judgment and decree are protected by the de facto doctrine, as it was passed by a Civil Judge exercising judicial functions under statutory authority and law.

4

Learned counsel thus prayed that the captioned petition be dismissed and the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 07.12.2023 , passed by the learned V - Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (West) / Special Court for Co -operative Societies, is illegal, and be upheld. In support of his contention , he relied upon the cases of Muhammad Anis v Messer Pak Gulf Leasing Company Limited 2025 CLC 1552, Faqir Muhammad v Khursheed Bibi and others 2024 SCMR 107, The State v Asif Adil and others 1997 SCMR 209 , Bashir Ahmed Anjum v Province of Punjab & others 2025 SCMR 206 , Abid Jan v Ministry of Defence Islamabad & others 2023 SCMR 1451, and Homoeo Dr. Asma Noreen Syed v Government of Sindh & others 2022 SCMR 1546. He lastly prayed to dismiss this petition. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record and case law . It is noted that the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.12.2023 were passed after recording evidence. 7. The trial Court found that the deceased Mst. Jamila Khatoon was the lawful lessee of the suit property and had execu ted a General Power of Attorney, which she validly revoked during her lifetime through public n otice dated 01.11.2018 and intimation to the concerned Sub-Registrar. The revocation was duly communicated and within the knowledge of the attorney. Despite such revocation, and even after the death of the principal on 11.01.2019, a c onveyance dated was executed in favour of a close fiduciary relation . The power of attorney had already stood terminat ed under Section 201 of the Contract Act, 1872 and was not coupled with interest. The evidence further established that no proof of payment of sale consideration was produced, a fact admitted during cross - examination, and the fiduc iary relationship stood proved. In view of the admitted revocation, termination of authority, absence of consideration, and settled law prohibiting transfer by an attorney to close relations without specific authorization, the trial Court rightly held the conveyance d eed to be null, void ab initio, and of no lega l effect. Upon the death of Mst. Jamila Khatoon, inheritance opened immediately, entitling all her legal heirs to their respective shares under Muslim Personal Law. An excerpt of the judgment and decree is reproduced as under:- ISSUE No. 1 The Plaintiffs instituted the present Suit for „Declaration, Cancellation of registered Sale Deed and Permanent Injunction” against the Defendants. The plaintiffs are claiming to be legal heirs of the deceased Mst. Jamila Khatoon and seeking cancellation of the Conveyan ce Deed registered in the name of Defendant No.3 after revocation of the general power of attorney. The suit of the Plaintiffs is of civil nature. Thus, the Suit of the plaintiffs is maintainable under Sections 39, 42 & 54, of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 read with Section 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the Defendants Nos. 1 & 2 challenged the jurisdiction of this

5

Special Court in application under Order VII Rule 10, C.P.C, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.11.2022. It would be expedient to reproduce the paragraphs Nos. 4 & 7 of the order dated 04.11.2022 as under:- “ Bare reading of the aforesaid prayer clauses clearly shows that the plaintiffs have sought rel ief in prayer clause ( e ) of this Suit against the Defendant No.3/Societ y. The Defendant No.1 is also claiming himself to be the owner of the Suit Property and member of the Society. The plaintiffs have also mentioned the cause of action and dispute against the Defendant No.1 in the plaint, who is alleged to be member of the S ociety. The Plaintiffs have also claimed that their other/ predecessor -in-interest is owner of the Suit Property and member of the Society. The docu ments annexed with the plaint including the registered Indenture of Sub -Lease show that membership No. 1801 was allocated to the plaintiff‟s mother. Thus, the plaintiffs are claiming through the member of the society. On the contrary the Defendant No.2 is also claiming to be lawful owner of the Suit Property having derived his title from the mother of the plaint iffs namely Mst. Jamila Khatoon (member of the Society) through attorney, the Defendant No.1. In such circumstances, the dispute and controversy between the current member of the Society and the persons (Plaintiffs) claiming through past member of the Socie ty i.e. Mst. Jamila Khatoon is to be decided by this Special Court in accordance with Section 73, of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 2020 read with Rule 53, of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Rules 2020.” “7. This provision would apply if dispute touches the business of societies and arises between the persons classified in clauses (a) to ( e ). They all relate to disputes regarding internal affairs of the Society in between its members or of members with the Society or its committee. It is crystal clear that the dispute and controversy between the members/ past member and the persons claiming through members/past members of the Society is to be adjudicated by this Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 73, of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 2020 read with Rule 53, of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Rules 2020. In these circumstances, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit.” The Defendants Nos. 1 & 2 have not challenged the order dated 04.11.2022, which attained final ity for all legal intents, implications and purposes. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the suit of the plaintiff is either expressly or impliedly barred by any law for the time being in force. Consequently, the issue No.1 is replied in negative. ISSUE NO.2 It is the version of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 are legal heirs of the deceased Mst. Jamila Khatoon, who was mother of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1. The deceased Mst. Jamila Khatoon was owner/lessee of the Suit Property i.e. Plot bearing No. 301, Category B -1, admeasuring 520 square yards, situated at Sinch Baloch Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Na -Class No. 166 & 210, Deh Safoora, Tappo Gadap, Karachi by virtue of Indenture of Sub-Lease vide registered No. 162, dated 11.01.2012 copied by means of microfilming system vide M.F Roll No. U -10362/7606, dated 15.02.2012. It has also come on record that the Defendant No.1 obtained “General Power of Attorney” from Mst. Jamila Khatoon widow of Abdul Hameed Khan vide registered No. 292, dated 01.02.2018 and Digital scanning vide No. 292/SRO: 18/ Doc Type- 42, dated 08.05.2018 in respect of the Suit Property. However, the deceased Jamila Khatoon revoked the said General Power of

6

Attorney during her lifetime vide Public Notice published in newspaper Amn Karachi on 01.11.2018. the deceased Jamila Khatoon had also sent intimation regarding revocation of the General power of attorney through her counsel vide letter dated 01.11.2018 to the Sub -Registrar-II, Gulshan -e-Iqbal Town, Karachi. Once a publication in newspaper was issued and the concerned Sub -Registrar was intima ted about revocation of the general power of attorney, which was also in the knowledge of the Defendant No.1/attorney. The Defendant No.2 is brother of father - in-law of the Defendant No.1. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the attorney to seek special permission from the principal (deceased Jamila Khatoon) to convey the Suit Property especially in the name of his close fi duciary relation belonging to his kith and kin (the Defendant No.2). Law does not require cancellation of power of attorney through a formal legal document such as deed cancellation on stamp paper and registered instrument. The power of attorney stands rev oked the moment it is communicated to the attorney through any mode. Reference may be made to the Case of Muhammad Ali Razi Khan v Muhammad Ali Zaki Khan and others ( 2007 MLD 54.) It is matter of record that the attorney in this matter i.e. Defendant No.1 was duly communicated with the revocation through publication in newspaper as well as letter to the convened Sub - Registrar to which he admitted during his cross -examination as under:- “It is correct to suggest that the General Power of Attorney executed by my mother namely Jamila Khatoon was revoked by her on 01.11.2018. It is correct to suggest that my mother called all the family members and disclosed about revocation of General Power of Attorney in presence of all the family members. It is correct to suggest that after revocation of Power of Attorney, any documents prepared later-on on the basis of Power of Attorney has no value in the e yes of law. It is correct to suggest that the Conveyance Deed executed on the basis of Power of Attorney on 06.12.2018 has also no value in the eyes of law. It is correct to suggest that the Conveyance Deed was forcibly obtained from me after harassment and taking me and my family members‟ hostage. It is correct to suggest that the sale consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/ - was not paid to me in respect of the Suit Property. It is correct to suggest that a the time of execution of Power of Attorney my mother Jam ila Khatoon was not present before the concerned Sub -Registrar. It is correct to suggest that the Sub-Registrar was also in collusion with the Defendant No.2 while executing and registering the Conveyance Deed. It is correct to suggest that the entire fraudulent transaction was made with the connivance of my father in law namely Muhammad Nazeer, Abdul Majeed (Defendant No.2), Fawad Nazeer and Muhammad Faisal.” In case of Raza Munir and another v Mst. Sardar Bibi and 3 others (2005 SCMR 1315), it was held by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan that. “The High Court has correctly proceeded in the matter. It has noticed that the factum of revocation in the manner stated in the plaint has not been questioned by the petitioners. This finding of the High Court has not been challenged before us. The issue of notice of cancellation as well as the appearance of the proclamation in the newspaper is again not denied. In all fairness, therefore, the petitioners ought to have been more vigilant as the proclamation in the newspaper puts the public -at-large on gua rd. Learned counsel also urges that after execution of the sale -deed

7

the attorney colluded with the plaintiff. There is nothing on record to substantiate the claim.” In case of Mst. Naila Kausar and another v Sardar Muhammad Bakhsh and others (2016 SCMR 1781) , it was held by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan that. “It is settled that an attorney cannot utilize the powers conferred upon him to transfer the property to himself or to his kith and kin without special and specific consent and permission of principal”. In case of Jamil Akhtar and others v Las Baba and others (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 494), it was held by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan that: “It is a settled principle of law that whenever a general attorney transfers the property of his principal in his even name or in the name of his close fiduciary relations, he has to take special permission from the principal.” The most important aspect of the case is that the Conveyance Deed in the name of Defendant No.2 in respect of the suit Property was executed vide registered No. 4965 dated 25.06.2019 afer revocation of the power of attorney by the deceased owner/lessee Jamila Khatoon through publication in newspaper dated 1.11.2018 and intimation dated 01.11.2018 to the concerned Sub -Registrar. Meanwhile the lessee Jamila Kha toon died on 11.01.2019 and the General Power of Attorney executed by the deceased stood terminated on the death of the principal, which was not even coupled with interest. Section 201, of the Contract Act, 1872 provides. “An agency is terminated by te pri ncipal revoking his authority, or by the agent renouncing the business of the agency; or by the business of the agency being completed; by either the principal or agent dying or becoming of unsound mind; or by the principal being adjudicated an insolvent u nder the provisions of any Act for the time being in force for the relief of insolvent debtors.” In case of Mst. Hajyani Bar B ibi through L.R v Mrs. Rehana Afzal Ali Khan and others (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 794), it was held by te Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan that; “ We find ourselves unable to agree with this contention of the learned Advocate Supreme court for the petitioner because it is not specifically mentioned in the general power of attorney that the attorney Khairudin had made any payment to late Zohra Bai and from the power of attorney it is not established that Khairuddin the attorney was appointed on the basis of recommendation of the Vendee of the agreement to sell dated 20.05.194 and therefore just by the mention of the sale agreement al ready executed in favor of the husband of the petitioner and his brother in the General Power of Attorney does not convert this general power of attorney into a power of attorney where the agent has an interest in the subject matter as specified in section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872 and therefore in accordance with section 201 of the Contract Act the power of attorney will stand terminated on the death of the principal and therefore the sub -power of attorney issued by attorney Khairuddin is also invalid and of no legal effect as his power had already stood terminated on the death of the principal.” It is also matter of record that the Defendants Nos. 1 & 2 have failed to produce a single document along with the written statement or affidavits -in-evidence to show that the alleged sale consideration of Rs, 34,35,000/ - was either paid to the principal/lessee Jamila Khatoon or to the attorney, the Defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 has denied to have received the alleged sale consideration from the defendant No.2. In such circumstances, the Conveyance Deed in the name of the Defendant No.2 in respect

8

of the Suit Property on the basis of revoked and terminated power of attorney, which too without proof in respect of payment of sale consideration to the principle is null, void ab - initio, of no legal effect and liable to be cancelled. Consequently, the Issue No.2 is replied in affirmative. ISSUE No.3 It is proved on record that the deceased Jamila Khatoo n revoked the General Power of Attorney executed by her during her lifetime vide Public Notice published in newspaper Amn Karachi on 01.11.2018. The deceased Jamila Khatoon had also sent intimation regarding revocation of the General Power of attorney thro ugh her counsel vide letter dated 01.11.2018 to the Sub -Registrar-II, Gulshan-e-Iqbal Town, Karachi. The publication in newspaper was issued and the convened Sub-Registrar was intimated about revocation of the general power of attorney, which was also in t he knowledge of…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant