judgement
Subject : Civil Law - Property Disputes
The case involves a dispute between two sisters, Thankamma George (the Appellant) and Lilly Thomas (Respondent No. 1), over the ownership of a property. The Appellant, who had been working abroad as a nurse, had granted a power of attorney to Respondent No. 1 in 2003. In 2008, Respondent No. 1 sold a portion of the property to her husband, Respondent No. 2, without the Appellant's knowledge or consent.
The Appellant argued that the power of attorney granted to Respondent No. 1 had been impliedly revoked when the Appellant joined in the execution of a sale deed in 2008. The Appellant also claimed that the sale deed executed by Respondent No. 1 in favor of Respondent No. 2 was void ab initio due to the lack of consideration.
The Respondents, on the other hand, argued that the power of attorney was still valid and that the Appellant had received her share of the sale consideration from the previous transaction.
The court examined the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, particularly Sections 207 and 208, which deal with the revocation and termination of an agent's authority. The court found that the Appellant's act of independently executing a sale deed in 2008 amounted to an implied revocation of the power of attorney granted to Respondent No. 1.
The court also noted that the admission by Respondent No. 1 that no consideration was paid for the sale deed executed in favor of Respondent No. 2 rendered that transaction void ab initio.
The court allowed the Appellant's appeal and upheld the Appellant's half-share in the disputed property. The court directed the trial court to explore the possibility of determining the current market value of the Appellant's half-share and for the Respondents to pay the Appellant accordingly. If the parties fail to reach a consensus, the trial court was instructed to proceed with the final decree and execution in accordance with the law.
#PropertyDispute #AgencyLaw #ImpliedRevocation #SupremeCourtSupremeCourt
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.