— Suit for cancellation of sale mutation — Failure to prove offer and acceptance — Effect — Respondent (Plaintiff) challenged the authenticity of sale mutation to the extent of transfer of her share in property i.e. 18 Kanals — 02 Marlas on the ground that she neither sold the same to respondent (defendant) nor did she appear before any revenue official or impressed her thumb in this regard — Trial Court decreed the suit — Appellate Court, ultimately, dismissed the appeal — Validity — In the beginning the petitioner was required to plead and prove that an understanding was developed between parties about the sale and price of suit land prior to entry and attestation of the suit mutation; and without such understanding, it could not be believed that parties all of the sudden entered into bargain and recorded their statements — There was nothing on the entire case record that how, when, where and in whose presence the respondent expressed her intention to sale the land to petitioner and on what price which motivated the petitioner to get the suit mutation entered and to get a local commission appointed for recording statements of purported vendors — Hence the very foundation for a valid sale, which is offer by vendor and acceptance by the vendee, was missing in the instant case — Revision petition was dismissed. [2024 CLS 22 = 2024 CLC 181]

— Suit for cancellation of sale mutation — Failure to prove offer and acceptance — Effect — Respondent (Plaintiff) challenged the authenticity of sale mutation to the extent of transfer of her share in property i.e. 18 Kanals — 02 Marlas on the ground that she neither sold the same to respondent (defendant) nor did she appear before any revenue official or impressed her thumb in this regard — Trial Court decreed the suit — Appellate Court, ultimately, dismissed the appeal — Validity — In the beginning the petitioner was required to plead and prove that an understanding was developed between parties about the sale and price of suit land prior to entry and attestation of the suit mutation; and without such understanding, it could not be believed that parties all of the sudden entered into bargain and recorded their statements — There was nothing on the entire case record that how, when, where and in whose presence the respondent expressed her intention to sale the land to petitioner and on what price which motivated the petitioner to get the suit mutation entered and to get a local commission appointed for recording statements of purported vendors — Hence the very foundation for a valid sale, which is offer by vendor and acceptance by the vendee, was missing in the instant case — Revision petition was dismissed. [2024 CLS 22 = 2024 CLC 181]

— A minor cannot enter into compromise — A person who has attained majority is competent and qualified to enter into a contract. [2024 CLS 24 = 2024 CLC 195]

— Who are competent to contract — Scope — Appellants/Petitioners claimed to have purchased land from the respondents in 1986, but it was later revealed that both respondents were minors at the time of the alleged sale — According to Section 11 of the Contract Act, minors are incompetent to enter into legal sale contracts of their property, rendering such transactions void — Furthermore, the appellants/petitioners failed to provide evidence of the sale or prove the execution of mutation — Supreme Court upheld the impugned judgment, finding it legally sound and well-supported by evidence — Consequently, the cases were dismissed as meritless, with no costs awarded. [2024 SCLR 27 = 2024 SCMR 150 = 2023 SCP 381]

Agent’s duty in conducting principal’s business. An agent is bound to conduct the business of his principal according to the directions given by the principal, or, in the absence of any such directions, according to the custom which prevails in doing business of the same kind at the place where the agent conducts such business. When the agent acts otherwise, if any loss be sustained, he must make it good to his principal, and, if any profit accrues, he must account for it.

Illustrations

(a) A, an agent engaged in carrying on for B a business, in which it is the custom to invest from time to time, at interest, the moneys which may be in hand, omits to make such investment. A must make good to B the interest usually obtained by such investments.

(b) B, a broker, in whose business it is not the custom to sell on credit, sells goods of A on credit to C, whose credit at the time was very high. C, before payment, becomes insolvent. B must make good the loss to A.

— Agent’s duty in conducting principal’s business — Agent’s duty to communicate with principal — Scope — Holder of a general power of attorney must obtain special permission from the principal when alienating the principal’s property, either in their own favor or in the name of their relatives — In the absence of such permission, the legality and propriety of the alleged sale deed in favor of these individuals remains highly doubtful. [PLR 2025 SC 10 = 2024 SCP 333 = PLD 2025 SC 63]

Agent’s duty to communicate with principal. It is the duty of an agent, in cases of difficulty, to use all reasonable diligence in communicating with his principal, and in seeking to obtain his instructions.

— Agent’s duty in conducting principal’s business — Agent’s duty to communicate with principal — Scope — Holder of a general power of attorney must obtain special permission from the principal when alienating the principal’s property, either in their own favor or in the name of their relatives — In the absence of such permission, the legality and propriety of the alleged sale deed in favor of these individuals remains highly doubtful. [PLR 2025 SC 10 = 2024 SCP 333 = PLD 2025 SC 63]