Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 406

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
M. S. Ananthamurthy & Anr. – Appellant
VERSUS
J. Manjula Etc – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 3266-3267 of 2025 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 13618-13619 of 2020)
Decided On : 27-02-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Radhakrishna S Hegde, Adv. Ms. Farhat Jahan Rehmani, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mr. Mustafa Sajad, Adv. Mr. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Adv. Mrs. Geetanjali Bedi, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Rights of POA Holder – POA Holder cannot execute agreement to sell on behalf of Principal where POA is not irrevocable.
(2) Interpretation of Documents (POA) – While construing a document, a reader should not go by title to document or nomenclature of document – Essence lies in power and not in subject-matter.
(3) Agreement to sell – Transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance – An agreement to sell is not a conveyance.
(4) Res Judicata – Where a finding on title is necessary for granting an injunction and has been substantially dealt with by Trial Court in a suit for injunction, direct and specific prayer for declaration of title is not a necessity.

Headnote:
(A) Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 – Sections 1A and 2 – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 202 – Registration Act, 1963 – Section 17 and 49 – Rights of POA Holder – Agency is a fiduciary relationship between two persons, where one explicitly or implicitly agrees that other will act on their behalf to influence their legal relations with third parties, and other similarly agrees to act in this capacity or does so based on an agreement – Power of attorney is a creation of an agency by which grantor/donor/executant authorizes grantee/donee/holder/attorney to do the acts specified on his behalf, which will be binding on executant as if acts were done by him – In present case, POA was to look after, maintain, manage Scheduled Property – POA is not irrevocable as it was not executed to effectuate security or to secure interest of agent – Holder of POA could not be said to have interest in subject-matter of agency – Mere use of word ‘irrevocable’ in a POA would not make POA irrevocable – If interest had been transferred by way of a written document, it had to be compulsorily registered – Even though GPA and agreement to sell were contemporaneous documents executed by original owner in favour of same beneficiary, this cannot be sole factor to conclude that she had interest in subject-matter – In absence of such registration, it would not be open for holder of POA to content that she had valid right, title and interest in immovable property to execute registered sale deed in favour of her son – Absence of a separate suit for declaration or even a specific prayer to that effect does not alter legal position of either party in facts of this case – Legal standing of both parties remains unaffected for want of distinct challenge to instruments in question. (Paras 27, 30, 40, 46, 48, 53, 55 and 57)
(B) Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 – Sections 1A and 2 – Interpretation of Documents (POA) – While construing a document, a reader should not go by title to document or nomenclature of document – In such a case, court is endowed with a duty to see contents of document and intention of parties which can be gathered from terms of document and/or from circumstances under which document was entered into – Intention of parties can be ascertained from language used by parties – A document has to be seen as a whole – Import of word “general” in a POA refers to power granted concerning subject matter – Test to determine nature of POA is subject matter for which it has been executed – Nomenclature of POA does not determine its nature – Even a POA termed as a ‘general power of attorney’ may confer powers that are special in relation to subject matter – Likewise, a ‘special power of attorney’ may confer powers that are general in nature concerning subject matter – Essence lies in power and not in subject-matter – Mere use of word ‘irrevocable’ in a POA does not make POA irrevocable – If POA is not coupled with interest, no extraneous expression can make it irrevocable – At the same time, even if there is no expression to the effect that POA is irrevocable but reading of document indicates that it is a POA coupled with interest, it would be irrevocable. (Paras 41, 42 and 45)
(C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 54 and 55 – Agreement to sell – Transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance – An agreement to sell is not a conveyance – It is not a document of title or a deed of transfer of deed of transfer of property and does not confer ownership right or title – An agreement to sell does not meet requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of TPA to effectuate a ‘transfer’. (Para 47)
(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Res Judicata – Where question of title is “directly and substantially” in issue in a suit for injunction, and where a finding on an issue of title is necessary for granting injunction, with a specific issue on title raised and framed, specific prayer for a declaration of title is not necessary – As a result, second suit would be barred when facts regarding title have been pleaded and decided by Trial Court – In present suit, findings on possession rest solely on findings on title – Where a finding on title is necessary for granting an injunction and has been substantially dealt with by Trial Court in a suit for injunction, direct and specific prayer for declaration of title is not a necessity – Where a finding on an issue of title is not necessary for deciding question of possession and grant of an injunction, or where no issue on title has been framed to decide a suit for injunction, any observation or decision on title would be incidental and collateral and will not operate as res judicata – However, findings on an issue of title in an earlier suit will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit where question of title is directly and substantially in issue in a suit for injunction. (Paras 58 and 59)
Facts of the case:
Following questions fall consideration: –
a. Whether Agent, by virtue of being a holder of General Power of Attorney along with Agreement to Sell had any right, title or interest in the subject-matter of the agency, to execute registered sale deed dated 01.04.1998 in favour of her son, after the death of Principal?
b. Whether it was obligatory for answering respondent to challenge execution and validity of General Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell dated 04.04.1986 and a further prayer to declare that registered sale deed dated 01.04.1998 is invalid, non-est or illegal in O.S. 133/2007?
Findings of Court:
No error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by High Court in passing impugned judgment.
Result : Appeals dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Conclusion of the Case

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants (Civil Appeal Nos. 3266-3267 of 2025, arising from SLP(C) Nos. 13618-13619/2020) with no order as to costs, thereby upholding the concurrent findings of both the trial court and the High Court of Karnataka. (!) (!) (!)

Key Reasons for Dismissal:

Invalidity of 1998 Sale Deed: The General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 04.04.1986, even if irrevocable, stood revoked by the death of the original owner (Muniyappa @ Ruttappa) on 30.01.1997. Consequently, the sale deed executed by A. Saraswathi on 01.04.1998 in favor of appellant no. 2 was null and void ab initio, as the POA holder lacked authority post-principal's death to transfer title. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Title and Possession with Answering Respondent: The chain of title through registered sale deeds (2003 from legal heirs to respondent no. 7, then to respondent no. 8) and the registered gift deed (2004 from respondent no. 8 to answering respondent no. 9 / J. Manjula) conferred valid title and uninterrupted possession upon the answering respondent. Her possession was protected by these registered documents, entitling her to the decree for permanent injunction in O.S. No. 133/2007. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Limitation Bar: The suit O.S. No. 4045/2008 filed by appellants in 2008 was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (12-year period from date of possession of defendants). The cause of action, if any, arose in 2003-2004 upon execution of respondents' documents, rendering the suit time-barred. (!) (!)
No Requirement to Challenge Earlier Documents: In the injunction suit (O.S. 133/2007), the answering respondent, being a bona fide purchaser for value under registered deeds without notice, was not required to challenge the unregistered 1986 agreement or the invalid 1998 sale deed, as her title was independent and superior. (!) (!)

The judgments of the courts below were affirmed in entirety, confirming the answering respondent's absolute ownership and possession of the Suit Property, with the appellants' claims rejected. (!) (!) (!)

JUDGMENT

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:-

INDEX
A.	FACTUAL MATRIX
B.	IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
C.	SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S)
D.	SUBMISSIONS OF BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S)
E.	ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
F.	ANALYSIS i. Relationship between the Executant and Holder of General Power of Attorney ii. Independent Reading of the General Power of Attorney and the Agreement to Sell a. ‘Interest’ in Power of Attorney b. Nature of Power of Attorney iii. Combined Reading of the General Power of Attorney and the Agreement to Sell iv. Effect of Suit for Injunction simpliciter
G.	CONCLUSION

1. Leave granted.

2. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same, the parties are also same and the challenge is also the self-same, hence those were taken up analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. These appeals have been filed before this Court from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 16.10.2019 in R.F.A. No. 1318/2014 c/w R.F.A. No. 1317/2014 (“impugned judgment”) whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the common judgment and decree dated 21.06.2014 passed in O.S. No. 133/2007 and O.S. No. 4045/2008 by the Court of VIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City.

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

4. The description of the parties before this Court, the High Court and before the Trial Court is tabulated as follows:-

BEFORE THIS COURT	BEFORE THE HIGH COURT	BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT	REMARKS
Muniyappa	-	-	Original Owner
A. Saraswathi	-	-	Holder of POA
Appellants	Petitioners	Plaintiff in O.S. No. 4045/2008	Defendant in suit instituted by the respondent no. 9
Respondent Nos. 1-6	Respondent Nos. 1-6	Defendant Nos. 1-6	Legal heirs of original owner
Respondent No. 7	Respondent No. 7	Defendant No. 7	Purchaser
Respondent No. 8	Respondent Nos. 8-10	Defendant No. 8	Purchaser
Respondent No. 9/Answering Respondent	Respondent No. 11	Plaintiff in O.S. No. 133/2007	Defendant no. 9 in suit instituted by the appellants/Gift Deed Holder

Appellant no. 2 was represented by his general power of attorney holder i.e., appellant no. 1, for the purposes of the appeal before the High Court and this Court.

5. The dispute arises from a common claim put forward by the appellants and the answering respondent on property bearing Site No. 10, out of Sy. No. 55/1, situated at Chunchaghatta Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk (hereinafter referred to as “Suit Property”). The Suit Property originally formed part of 1 acre 8 guntas of land situated in Chunchaghatta Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluka within the revenue limits of Konanakunte Gram Panchayat owned by late Muniyappa @ Ruttappa (hereinafter referred to as “original owner”). The original owner developed the said land in the form of individual plots and sold those plots for consideration to various person. The Suit Property is one of those plots.

6. It is the case of the appellants that on 04.04.1986, the Suit Property was sold by the original owner one A. Saraswathi (hereinafter referred to as “holder”) for total sale consideration of Rs.10, 250/- by executing an irrevocable power of attorney (hereinafter referred to as “POA”) and an unregistered agreement to sell. The contents of the said POA and agreement to sell are extracted hereinbelow:-

“GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT, I, Muniyappa urf Ruttappa Son of Ragallappa, Major, residing at Vajarahalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk do hereby appoint, nominate and constitute Smt. A. Saraswathi W/O M. S. Anantha