Islamabad: The Supreme Court has held that a power of attorney authorizing a person to sell immovable property also includes, unless expressly restricted, the authority to enter into an agreement to sell the property.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan gave the ruling while deciding two civil appeals concerning agricultural land. The court set aside a March 30, 2012 judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, and restored the concurrent judgments of the subordinate courts.
According to the detailed judgment, a registered power of attorney executed on August 31, 1977 had been duly proved in accordance with law, and Ahmad Din had been authorized by Ghulam Bari to execute the January 20, 1979 agreement to sell the property.
The Supreme Court observed that a registered power of attorney carries a legal presumption regarding its due execution and validity, which could not be displaced merely on the basis of the statement of a single witness. A party challenging its validity must produce strong and reliable evidence.
The court noted that the subordinate courts had reached concurrent findings after a detailed appraisal of both oral and documentary evidence. However, the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, had reappraised the evidence and substituted its own view, which was legally impermissible.
The court held that when an owner authorizes an attorney to sell property, the authority necessarily included the power to settle the terms of sale and, before completing the transaction, to enter into an agreement to sell, as such an agreement forms the basis for the eventual transfer of ownership.
It further observed that where the power of attorney contained no express prohibition against executing an agreement to sell, the authority to sell could not be given such a narrow interpretation that it became practically ineffective.
The judgment noted that Ahmad Din had used the Rs 35, 000 received as earnest money under the agreement to repay Ghulam Bari’s loan from the Agricultural Development Bank. Ghulam Bari subsequently executed a document on February 21, 1979 cancelling the same power of attorney, which also supported the existence of the earlier power of attorney.
The Supreme Court observed that purchaser Muhammad Younas had established his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement, while the impediment to completion of the sale arose after Ghulam Bari cancelled the power of attorney.
Allowing both appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the Lahore High Court’s judgment dated March 30, 2012 and restored the judgments of the Senior Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, dated July 29, 1986, and the Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, dated July 25, 2011.
The court directed the parties to bear their own costs. The judgment was authored by Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.
