Power of Attorney Ceases upon Principal's Death; Subsequent Sale of Deceased's Share is Invalid: Rajasthan High Court upholds Tehsildar's jurisdiction under S.201 of the Contract Act. - 2025-09-03

Sale Deed Executed on Behalf of Deceased is Invalid, Rajasthan High Court Upholds Mutation Correction

Jaipur, Rajasthan – The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, has affirmed that a power of attorney (POA) automatically terminates upon the death of the principal, rendering any subsequent property sale based on that POA invalid with respect to the deceased's share. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a land mutation entry, holding that revenue authorities acted correctly in rectifying records based on a void transaction.

Case Background: A Land Transaction from Beyond the Grave

The dispute centered on a parcel of land originally co-owned by five brothers, each holding a 1/5th share. In 1988, all five brothers executed a registered POA in favour of one Chandi Ram. One of the brothers, Panchu, passed away on April 16, 1990.

However, five years after Panchu's death, the POA holder, Chandi Ram, executed a sale deed on June 9, 1995, for the entire property to two individuals, who subsequently sold it to the petitioner, Smt. Kamla Khinchi, in 2006. Based on this 2006 sale deed, the mutation (entry in land records) was made in the petitioner's name.

Years later, the legal heirs of the deceased brother, Panchu, approached the Tehsildar under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, to correct the erroneous entry. The Tehsildar, on December 14, 2017, allowed their application and corrected the mutation. The petitioner’s subsequent appeals to the Divisional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were dismissed, leading her to file the present writ petition before the High Court.

Arguments at the High Court

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Tehsildar lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 136 and had violated procedural norms by not issuing a show-cause notice. The petitioner contended that the respondents should have filed a civil suit to cancel the sale deed rather than seeking correction of revenue entries.

Conversely, the respondents’ counsel argued that the sale of Panchu's 1/5th share in 1995 was void from the outset. They relied on Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which states that a power of attorney terminates upon the death of the principal. Since Panchu had died in 1990, Chandi Ram had no legal authority to sell his share in 1995. They asserted that since the underlying transaction was void, the revenue authorities were correct in correcting the mutation, and the procedural lapse of not issuing a notice did not invalidate the Tehsildar's fundamentally just order.

Court's Analysis and Decision

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, after perusing the records and hearing both sides, upheld the decisions of the lower revenue courts. The court found that the central fact—Panchu's death in 1990, five years before the sale of his share—was undisputed.

The judgment emphasized a settled legal principle:

"It is the settled proposition of law that after death of an individual, the execution of power attorney of such individual comes to an end automatically in terms of Section 201 of the Act of 1872, hence, under these circumstances, the revenue entries made in favour of the petitioner were not tenable and the same has been rightly quashed by the Tehsildar."

The Court concluded that since the sale deed pertaining to Panchu's 1/5th share was invalid, the subsequent mutation in the petitioner's name was inherently flawed. Therefore, the actions of the Tehsildar, Divisional Commissioner, and the Board of Revenue in correcting this error were legally sound.

Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court found no error in the impugned orders that would warrant its interference. However, the court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the petitioner if she chose to pursue any other available legal remedies.