- In Umadevi Nambiar vs. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese (2022), a bench consisting of J. Hemant Gupta and J. V. Ramasubramanian held a Power of Attorney (GPA) document, when rigorously interpreted, does not include the power to sell. Furthermore, the agent's power to sell would be relevant only if the document enables him explicitly to implement the sale deed, present it for registration, and acknowledge its execution before the appropriate authority.
- In this case, the plaintiff enacted a GPA in favour of her sister, which was afterward revoked. Simultaneously, the sister was discovered to have signed four separate documents in the names of various third parties, assigning specific properties. Therefore, the plaintiff first filed two suits against the assignees. She then filed another lawsuit, seeking partition and a separate claim of a half share in the suit property. The trial court dismissed the claim, concluding that the deed did not provide any power to sell the land and, as a result, the plaintiff's sister was not allowed to transfer the property.
- Order II Rule 2, CPC requires that every suit include the entirety of the claim that the plaintiff is entitled to state in respect of a cause of action.
- Section 3 in The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is an Interpretation Clause.
- Section 41 in The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 talks about the Transfer by the apparent owner.
- In a relevant case, Delhi development authority versus Durga Chand Kashish, (1973) 2 SCC 825, the rule of interpretation to be assumed while construing exhibit A1, the deed of GPA was observed.
- In another noteworthy case, Syed Abdul Khader V. Rami Reddy and others, (1973) 2 SCC 601, the Hon'ble Court noted the question as to how the deed of power of attorney should be construed.
- In Church of Christ Charitable Trust And Educational Charitable Society V. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706, it was held that the agent should be authorized expressly by the document to implement the sale deed, present it for registration and admit execution of it before the registering authority.
- The Hon'ble Court ruled that the appellant must have had constructive notice of her sister's alienations under Section 3 of the TP Act, 1882, even though Order II Rule 2 CPC may not be applicable to partition suits, and that once constructive notice is attributed to the appellant, any relief for cancellation of documents would have been time-barred. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Court contended that because the GPA had no specific authorization to sell the suit property, the transferee could not be said to have exercised 'reasonable care' as demanded by Section 41 of the TP Act, 1882. Moreover, the appellant's omission to seek the remedy of setting aside the transfer instruments and regaining property control was fatal to her appeal.
- The Apex Court bench, while referring to the aforementioned cases, pointed out that the power of attorney deed did not include an express power to sell the property. However, it did include an express authorization to lease it and execute any document pledging the property as collateral for any debt. Furthermore, the court held that the High Court's grounds for determining that the plaintiff should have contested the alienations because she was out of possession was wrong.
- Therefore, the Hon'ble Court allowed the appeal by stating that the appellant's sister lacked the authority to sell the property to the respondent's vendors. Therefore, the respondent's sellers could not have derived any legal title to the land.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
