Power of Attorney limits - Attorney authority

When someone is granted a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in Pakistan, it gives the attorney the legal authority to act on behalf of another person, known as the principal. A common question arises: Can a Power of Attorney transfer property to a relative without specific permission from the principal?

The Lahore High Court recently addressed this critical issue in Haider Aftab & Others v. Dilawar Khan (Civil Revision No.31616 of 2025). The judgment provides important guidance on the limits of an attorney's authority and the consequences of self-dealing transactions.

This blog analyzes the judgment to help property owners, attorneys, and purchasers understand their legal rights and obligations when dealing with property through a Power of Attorney.

Property Lawyers Peshawar Property Power of Attorney Lawyers in Islamabad

What is a General Power of Attorney?

A General Power of Attorney is a legal document that authorizes a person (the attorney) to act on behalf of another person (the principal) in specified matters. In property transactions, a GPA often grants the attorney authority to sell, transfer, or manage the principal's property.

However, the Lahore High Court has made it clear that a GPA does not grant unlimited authority. The attorney must exercise their powers solely for the benefit of the principal and cannot use the position for personal gain.

The Limits of a General Power of Attorney

What Authority Does a GPA Actually Grant?

A common misconception is that a General Power of Attorney authorizes an attorney to transfer property to themselves or their relatives freely. This is not the case. The Lahore High Court reaffirmed that:

"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 the principal."

Why Self-Dealing Is Prohibited

The Court emphasized that an attorney occupies a fiduciary position. This means the attorney is legally obligated to act in the principal's best interest, not their own.

"Such self-serving transactions invite strict judicial scrutiny because they inherently involve a conflict between personal interest and fiduciary duty."

A General Power of Attorney, however widely worded, does not by itself authorize the attorney to transfer the principal's property in favour of close relatives. A general authority to "sell" cannot be equated with authority to enter into a transaction involving self-dealing.

Strict Judicial Scrutiny of Self-Dealing

What Must the Beneficiary Prove?

The Court emphasized that transactions where an attorney deals with the principal's property in favour of themselves or their relatives are subject to strict scrutiny. The beneficiary bears a heavy burden to establish that:

  1. The principal had expressly authorized the transaction; or
  2. The principal subsequently ratified it with full knowledge; and
  3. The transaction was bona fide and free from conflict of interest.

The Standard of "Express Authorization"

Neither the General Power of Attorney nor the pleadings or evidence can disclose such authority by implication. The Court observed:

"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."

Key Takeaway: If you are benefiting from a transaction where an attorney transfers property to a relative, you must provide clear evidence that the principal gave specific permission for that particular transaction.

Subsequent Conduct Matters

The Timeline of Prompt Repudiation

The Court examined the principal's conduct after discovering the transaction. In Haider Aftab, the sequence of events was highly revealing:

DateEvent
08.02.2010Principal executed GPA
09.02.2010Attorney executed agreement to sell in favour of his brother-in-law
12.02.2010Principal revoked the GPA
13.02.2010Principal instituted a declaratory suit

Why Quick Action Matters in Court

Such prompt repudiation was held to be:

"wholly inconsistent with the suggestion that Dilawar Khan had consented to or ratified the transaction."

Key Takeaway: If you discover misuse of a Power of Attorney, act immediately. Prompt revocation of the GPA and institution of legal proceedings are strong evidence that you did not consent to the transaction.

Registration Does Not Validate Unauthorized Transactions

The Limited Evidentiary Value of Registration

The Court rejected the argument that registration of the GPA and agreement to sell validated the transaction:

"Registration merely raises a rebuttable presumption regarding the due execution of an instrument; it neither enlarges the authority conferred upon an attorney nor validates a transaction beyond the scope of such authority."

Registration vs. Legal Validity

A registered instrument cannot sanctify an otherwise unauthorized or legally impermissible transaction. The Court further clarified:

"A registered instrument cannot sanctify an otherwise unauthorized or legally impermissible transaction."

Key Takeaway: Registration of documents does not cure the fundamental defect of lack of authority. A registered GPA or sale agreement is not valid if the attorney lacked authority to enter into the transaction.

Fraud vs. Abuse of Fiduciary Authority

When Fraud Is Not Required

The Court made an important legal distinction. Even if the execution of the GPA itself was valid and fraud in its execution was not strictly proved, the surrounding circumstances clearly established 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."

Independent Grounds for Invalidating Transactions

This means that even without proving fraud in obtaining the GPA, the transaction can still be declared invalid if the attorney has abused their position by acting beyond the scope of their authority.

Key Takeaway: The principal does not need to prove fraud in obtaining the GPA to invalidate a transaction. Evidence that the attorney exceeded their authority is sufficient.

The Specific Performance Dimension

Delay and "Continuous Readiness and Willingness"

The Court also dismissed the suit for specific performance, noting the vendee's conduct:

"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."

Why Delay Defeats Equity

Specific performance is a discretionary and equitable remedy. The Court held:

"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 circumstances."

The Court also noted material inconsistencies in the petitioners' evidence:

"Their witnesses contradicted each other regarding 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 materially impair the credibility of the defence."

Key Takeaway: If you are seeking specific performance of an agreement, you must act promptly. Unexplained and prolonged delay will disentitle you to this equitable relief. Your evidence must also be consistent and credible.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

PrincipleApplication
Attorney is a fiduciaryMust act solely for principal's benefit
No self-dealingCannot transfer to self or relatives without specific authorization
Beneficiary bears burdenMust prove express authority or ratification
Registration ≠ validityRegistration does not enlarge attorney's authority
Prompt repudiation mattersQuick revocation by principal indicates lack of consent
Delay defeats equityUnexplained delay in seeking specific performance is fatal
Fraud ≠ requiredAbuse of fiduciary authority alone can invalidate transaction
Inconsistent evidenceContradictions impair credibility of the defence

Judicial Precedents Applied

The Lahore High Court relied upon the following authorities:

Case CitationPrinciple
Allah Bakhsh (deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Riaz and others PLD 2025 Supreme Court 63Fiduciary duty of attorney; prohibition on self-dealing
Muhammad Arshad and 2 others v. Haq Nawaz and 9 others 2019 YLR 958Attorney cannot deal in property for personal benefit
Muhammad Anwar v. Mst. Bahrawar Sultana and others 2021 CLC 1707Specific authorization required for attorney transactions
Muhammad Mansha and others v. Saleem Bibi 2026 MLD 320Strict scrutiny of attorney self-dealing transactions

Conclusion

The Haider Aftab & Others v. Dilawar Khan judgment makes it abundantly clear that a General Power of Attorney does not grant an attorney the unfettered authority to transfer the principal's property, especially to themselves or their family members.

First: Attorney as Fiduciary

An attorney stands in a fiduciary relationship with the principal and must exercise their delegated powers solely for the principal's benefit. Any deviation from this duty invites strict judicial scrutiny.

Second: Specific Authorization Required

A general authority to "sell" or "transfer" cannot be equated with authority to enter into a self-dealing transaction. The attorney must have specific authorization from the principal to transfer property to themselves or their relatives. A General Power of Attorney, however widely worded, does not by itself authorize such transactions.

Third: Burden of Proof on Beneficiary

The beneficiary of such a transaction bears a heavy burden to prove either express authorization from the principal or subsequent ratification with full knowledge of the transaction and its implications. This burden is not discharged by merely pointing to a registered GPA or agreement to sell.

Fourth: Registration Does Not Cure Defects

Registration of documents does not cure the fundamental defect of lack of authority. Registration merely raises a rebuttable presumption regarding execution; it does not enlarge the attorney's authority or validate an otherwise impermissible transaction.

Fifth: Fraud Not Always Required

Even if fraud in obtaining the GPA is not strictly proved, the transaction can still be declared invalid on the ground of abuse of fiduciary authority. The unauthorized exercise of delegated powers alone is sufficient to invalidate the transaction.

Sixth: Prompt Repudiation Is Strong Evidence

Prompt repudiation by the principal—such as immediate revocation of the GPA and institution of legal proceedings—is strong evidence that the principal neither consented to nor ratified the transaction.

Seventh: Delay Defeats Equity

Unexplained and prolonged delay in seeking specific performance is fatal to such a claim. The equitable remedy of specific performance requires continuous readiness and willingness, and stale claims will not be entertained.

Eighth: Consistency in Evidence Matters

Material contradictions in the evidence of the party claiming under the attorney will impair the credibility of the defence. Courts will not grant relief where the evidence is inconsistent and unreliable.

Practical Implications

StakeholderImplication
AttorneysMust obtain specific authorization for self-dealing; maintain transparency; cannot exploit fiduciary position
PrincipalsShould ensure GPA contains clear limitations; can promptly revoke upon discovering misuse
PurchasersMust verify attorney's authority; check for specific permission; beware of self-dealing transactions
Legal PractitionersShould advise clients on fiduciary duties; ensure GPAs are properly drafted with clear terms
CourtsWill apply strict scrutiny to attorney transactions; refuse specific performance where delay is unexplained

About the Judgment

DetailsInformation
Case NameHaider Aftab & Others v. Dilawar Khan
CitationCivil Revision No.31616 of 2025
CourtLahore High Court, Lahore
JudgeMuhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J.
Date of Decision24.06.2026
Petitioners' CounselMr. Muhammad Safdar Shaheen Gill, Advocate
Connected CasesC.R. No.31617 of 2025

Useful Resources

For related matters, you may also want to read our guides on Power of Attorney in Pakistan, Property Power of Attorney, and property lawyers in Peshawar.

Disclaimer: This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal issues, consult a qualified property lawyer in Peshawar, lawyer in Islamabad, or wherever your matter is being handled.

Zia Law Firm

Property & Civil Law Experts

Zia Law Firm is a trusted legal practice based at Peshawar High Court, providing expert guidance on Power of Attorney disputes, property law, fiduciary duty matters, and civil litigation across KPK and Islamabad.

Facing a Power of Attorney or Property Dispute?

Our specialist property lawyers in Peshawar and property lawyers in Islamabad are available for confidential consultations — in person, by phone, or online.

WhatsApp Us Now Call: +92 312 9293511