Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Appellate Order in Succession Act Case — Power of Attorney Holder Can File Appeal Under Section 384 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Court held that the word 'person' in Section 384 includes a power of attorney holder, and the appeal filed by such holder is maintainable.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Accused
  • 123
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Mr. Tomas Shamson De Souza, through his power of attorney holder Mr. Teofilo Dias, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the judgment and order of the District Judge, South Goa, dated 30th September 2015. The District Judge had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, against the grant of a succession certificate in favour of the respondents, on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed by a power of attorney holder. The petitioner contended that the power of attorney holder was competent to file the appeal, relying on Section 2(a) of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882, which allows a power of attorney holder to do any act which the principal could do. The respondents argued that the right to appeal is a personal right and cannot be delegated. The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, which uses the word 'person' without any restriction, and held that a power of attorney holder is included within the meaning of 'person' and can file an appeal on behalf of the principal. The Court noted that the right to appeal is a substantive right and can be exercised through an agent, as long as the agent is duly authorized. The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the District Judge for hearing the appeal on merits.

Headnote

A) Succession Law - Appeal by Power of Attorney Holder - Section 384 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Maintainability - The issue was whether a power of attorney holder can file an appeal under Section 384 against the grant of a succession certificate - The Court held that the word 'person' in Section 384 includes a power of attorney holder, as the right to appeal is a substantive right and can be exercised through an agent - The Court allowed the petition and set aside the appellate order that had dismissed the appeal as not maintainable (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a power of attorney holder is competent to file an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, against the grant of a succession certificate.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the District Judge dated 30th September 2015, and remanded the matter to the District Judge for hearing the appeal on merits. The Court held that a power of attorney holder is competent to file an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Law Points

  • Power of attorney holder can file appeal under Section 384 of Indian Succession Act
  • 1925
  • Succession certificate proceedings
  • Maintainability of appeal by agent
  • Section 2(a) of Power of Attorney Act
  • 1882
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (02) 100

WRIT PETITION NO.687 of 2015

2016-02-12

S. B. Shukre, J.

Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. Simoes, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Nitin Sardessai, Senior Advocate with Ms. G. Kakodkar, Advocate for the respondents

Mr. Tomas Shamson De Souza

Mrs. Nelly D'Souza and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the order of the District Judge dismissing an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, as not maintainable because it was filed by a power of attorney holder.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought to set aside the District Judge's order and to have the appeal heard on merits.

Filing Reason

The District Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that a power of attorney holder cannot file an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Previous Decisions

The District Judge, South Goa, by order dated 30th September 2015, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner as not maintainable.

Issues

Whether a power of attorney holder is competent to file an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that under Section 2(a) of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882, a power of attorney holder can do any act which the principal could do, including filing an appeal. Respondents argued that the right to appeal is a personal right and cannot be delegated to a power of attorney holder.

Ratio Decidendi

The word 'person' in Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, includes a power of attorney holder, as the right to appeal is a substantive right that can be exercised through a duly authorized agent. Section 2(a) of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882, permits a power of attorney holder to do any act which the principal could do, unless the act is personal in nature. Filing an appeal is not a personal act and can be delegated.

Judgment Excerpts

The word 'person' in Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, includes a power of attorney holder. The right to appeal is a substantive right and can be exercised through an agent.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, before the District Judge, South Goa, against the grant of a succession certificate. The District Judge dismissed the appeal on 30th September 2015 on the ground that it was not maintainable as it was filed by a power of attorney holder. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Succession Act, 1925: 384
  • Power of Attorney Act, 1882: 2(a)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Summoning of Additional Accused Under Section 319 CrPC in Assault Case — High Court Erred by Relying on Police Investigation Over Trial Evidence. The Court restored the Sessions Judge's order summoning four persons as additiona...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Withdrawal of PIL Seeking Enforcement of Pet Waste Management Bye-laws as Infructuous. Court Emphasizes Its Duty to Examine Public Interest Before Permitting Withdrawal of a Public Interest Litigation.