Back
PANKAJ MITHAL, S. V. N. BHATTI
Tharammel Peethambaran – Appellant
Versus
T. Ushakrishnan – Respondent
Question 1? What is the legality and evidentiary sufficiency of a notarised photocopy of a Power of Attorney (Exh. B-2) to confer authority to sell, given lack of original and the requirements of Sections 65-66 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 33 of the Registration Act? Question 2? How does the High Court's interpretation of Section 100 CPC regarding perverse findings and substantial questions of law apply to reappreciation of facts based on PoA documents in this case? Question 3? What are the legal consequences of admitting receipts and conduct of the plaintiff in relation to the PoA and the sale deeds, on the binding effect of the sale to the 2nd and 3rd defendants?
Key Points: - The appeal centers on whether Exh. B-2 (not original) can establish authority to sell under evidentiary rules (Sections 65-66, 85, 63) and Registration Act Section 33 (!) (!) (!) . - The High Court rightly rejected reliance on a photocopy as admissible secondary evidence without proper foundational proof and compliance with secondary-evidence procedures (!) (!) (!) (!) - (!) . - The Court held that secondary evidence cannot be admitted without proving existence and validity of the original and non-production reasons (loss/destruction) per Section 65; mere admission or exhibits do not cure this (!) (!) (!) . - It was found that Exh. B-2 as a notarised photocopy cannot prove the extent of authority to alienate the Plaintiff’s property; original document not produced, leading to perverse/incorrect findings by the First Appellate Court (!) (!) (!) . - The High Court re-appreciated evidence to determine misreading or inadmissible reliance on Exh. B-2, thereby upholding Section 100 CPC standards and setting aside lower judgments (!) (!) - (!) . - The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the Civil Appeal, affirming that the lower court’s findings based on inadmissible secondary evidence cannot bind the Plaintiff or convey title to transferees (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is at the instance of the 1st and 2nd Defendants in O.S No.197 of 2013 before the Senior Civil Judge, Kozhikode. The 1st Respondent filed OS No. 197 of 2013 for declaration, perpetual injunction, and damages for use and occupation. The Plaintiff is admittedly the owner of the Plaint A- Schedule consisting of three items of immovable property. A few household items are mentioned in Plaint B-Schedule. The Plaintiff is the 1st Defendant’s sister. The Plaintiff resides in Mumbai, and the 1st Defendant resides in Kozhikode. The 1st defendant is the brother-in-law of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. Stated chronologically, on 31.07.1998, the Plaintiff is said to have executed a Power of Attorney (“PoA”) in favour of the 1st defendant. The PoA is exhibited by the Plaintiff as Exhibit A-4 and by the Defendants as Exhibit B-2, a notarised photocopy. On 15.03.2007, the 1st Defendant, in the purported authority given to him through the PoA/Exh. B-2, executed registered sale deeds nos. 262 and 263 of 2007 in favour of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. The Plaintiff, having come to know of the sale in favour of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, through t
(1) Second appeal – Legality of a finding of fact, when challenged on the ground of perversity, itself constitutes a question of law and may give rise to a substantial question of law under Section 1....
(1) [By Hon'ble Justice M.R. Shah]]Title Declaratory Suit – When plaintiffs claimed title on the basis of two sale deeds, it was for plaintiffs to prove even execution of sale deeds – Defendants were....
While a document is registered and particulars as required by Sections 52 and 58 of the Registration Act are endorsed on it as provided in Section 60, a presumption by reference to Section 114 [Illus....
The court established that secondary evidence is inadmissible without a foundational explanation for the absence of primary evidence, emphasizing strict adherence to evidentiary rules.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting facts, with claims of forgery regarding a registered power of attorney necessitating all relevant parties to be joined to the suit for effective adjudi....
The court ruled that while a certified copy of a sale deed is admissible as secondary evidence, it does not suffice to prove the execution of the deed, which must demonstrate intention and legal vali....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validation of the power of attorney (Ex.B1) and the implications of its validity on the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favor of t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the party seeking to admit secondary evidence must establish the non-production of the original document as required under the Indian Evidence....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
