A sale agreement executed by an unauthorized power of attorney holder does not confer valid title to the property.

EASWARAN S., J --------------------------------------------

R.S.A No.1015 of 2012 --------------------------------------------

Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2026 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.40 of 2007 on the files of the Additional District Court (Adhoc-III), Manjeri, which reversed to the judgment and decree in O.S.No.18 of 2005 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Manjeri. The appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession and injunction, stating that he is in possession of the plaint schedule property pursuant to a sale deed executed in his favour on 02.02.1996 by one Palan. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff had instituted O.S.No.326 of 1999, a suit for injunction, which was subsequently withdrawn and the present suit was preferred. The defendant resisted the suit by contending that the property was purchased from a decree holder who got this property in execution by judgment and decree in O.S.No.304 of 1996 which is a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that the collusive suit between one Palan and one Alavikutty with whom he had entered into an agreement of sale way back in the year 1986. In fact, according to the plaintiff, the suit itself was not maintainable as the suit was barred by limitation because in the suit what was sought for, is to basically enforce an agreement of sale dated 20.11.1986. The trial court by judgment and decree dated 13.02.2007 decreed the present suit. Aggrieved the defendant preferred A.S.No.40 of 2007 and the appellate court on re-appreciation of the evidence found that the sale in favour of the appellant was through a power of attorney which was executed by Palan on 31.12.1992 and whereas he had executed yet another power of attorney on 17.11.1994 in favour of another person. Thus, giving an implication that the earlier power of attorney was revoked. The first appellate court found that at the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of the appellant the power of attorney holder did not have the right to alienate the property. That apart, it was further found that though the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff on 02.02.1996, he had not mutated the property nor remitted any tax in respect of the same and thereby indicating that the possession was never conveyed to him. Accordingly, the judgment and decree from the trial court was reversed and the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate court, the appeal is preferred.

2. Heard Smt.M.A.Zohra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the light of the divergent findings of the courts below, it is necessary that the appeal be heard on merits. She submitted that O.S.No.304 of 1996 was a collusive suit between the Palan and one Alavikkutty with whom he had entered into an agreement of sale which was in the year 1986. Still further, the suit filed in the year 1996 was admittedly beyond the period of limitation. Since the appellant did not know about the agreement of sale, he was a bona fide purchaser and was not bound by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.304 of 1996. It also contended that since the power of attorney is not cancelled and therefore the sale in favour of the appellant is valid.

4. I have considered the submissions raised across the Bar by the learned counsel for the appellant and is of the considered view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal, for following reasons:

(a) Admittedly, there is an agreement of sale between the parties on 20.11.1986 which resulted in a judgment and decree dated 29.10.1996 in O.S.No.304 of 1996. If the appellant