A power of attorney must be strictly construed; it did not authorize the attorney to relinquish the principal's shares in property, rendering the partition deed invalid.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

The construction of a power-of-attorney, based on which sale deed has been executed, falls for consideration in these appeals.

2. Two suits were tried together. O.S.No.103/2008 was for mandatory injunction and O.S.No.234/2008 was for partition. O.S.No.103/2008 was decreed concurrently, while O.S.No.234/2008 was dismissed. Two appeals were filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.234/2008 and defendant in O.S.No.103/2008. These appeals were allowed by judgment dated 07.03.2012 by this Court permitting the plaintiff in O.S.No.234/2008 to amend the pleadings and adduce evidence afresh. The said order was challenged by the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/2008 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by Civil Appeal Nos.4241-4242 of 2016. By order dated 19.04.2016, the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the matter was remanded back to this Court for fresh consideration and hence, these appeals are listed.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:

3.1. Originally, the property belonged to one Padmanabha Pandit, who had two children, Balachandra Pandit and Madhukar Pandit. On the death of Padmanabha Pandit, the property jointly devolved upon his sons. In 1995, vide Partition Deed No.899/1995, the legal heirs of Balachandra Pandit and Madhukar Pandit entered into a partition, whereby 5.900 cents of land was allotted to the legal heirs of Balachandra Pandit and 4.100 cents of land in favour of Madhukar Pandit. While executing the aforesaid partition deed, the legal heirs of Balachandra Pandit, except Smt.Anupama and her sister, Smt.Aruna, relinquished their share in favour of their mother Smt.Santha Bai. Two Power of Attorneys dated 07.11.1994 and 21.11.1994, were executed by the daughters of Balachandra Pandit, in favour of Smt.Santha Bai for execution of the partition deed. When the partition deed was executed, it was mentioned that in the partition deed that the daughters of Balachandra Pandit, i.e. Smt.Anupama and Smt.Aruna relinquished their share in favour of Smt.Santha Bai.

3.2. Later, in the year 2002, Smt.Santha Bai executed a sale deed in favour of Sri.A.A.Prakasan, the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/2008, vide Sale Deed No.1106/2002. Subsequent to the purchase, it appears that Smt.Santha Bai continued to occupy the building in the plaint schedule property presumably based on a permission granted by Sri.A.A.Prakasan. Later, Sri.A.A.Prakasan filed O.S.No.103/2008 seeking for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant Smt.Santha Bai to surrender the possession of plaint B schedule property. Immediately after the said suit, the appellant in R.S.A No.226/2012 filed O.S.No.234/2008 seeking for a partition of 1/6^th share over the plaint schedule property on the ground that she had not authorised Smt.Santha Bai, her mother, to execute the relinquishment deed. According to her, the partition deed, insofar as it divest her right over the property is concerned, is not binding upon her.

3.3. Both the suits were tried together. On behalf of plaintiff in O.S.No.103/2008, Exts.A1 to A12 were marked and PW1 was examined and on behalf of defendants, DW1 and DW2 were examined. No documentary evidence was adduced by the defendants. The Trial Court, based on the documentary evidence and pleadings, framed the following issues for consideration:

O.S.No.103/2008

1. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

2. Whether the plaintiff proved absolute title of plaint A schedule property?

3