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
Ponraj Challenges FIR Over Alleged Defamatory Political Remarks
16 Jun 2026
Outsourced Employees Lack Right to Promotion; Unauthorized Designation Upgrades Are Legally Void: Uttarakhand High Court
16 Jun 2026
Assigning Administrative Charges to Tainted Officials Violates Natural Justice: MP High Court Quashes PWD Order
16 Jun 2026
SC Rules Walking on Footpaths is Fundamental Right
19 Jun 2026
Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be Invoked for Title Disputes Unless Section 23 Applies: Allahabad High Court
04 Jul 2026
Vague And Nebulous Allegations Do Not Warrant Judicial Interference In Policy Matters: Patna High Court
04 Jul 2026
12-Year Possession Mandatory To Resist Land Eviction: Jharkhand HC
04 Jul 2026
Advocates Have No Right to Demand Out-Of-Turn Listing of Cases: Madras High Court
07 Jul 2026
Delhi High Court Examines Personality Rights in Cricket Lawsuit
07 Jul 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.