Case Note & Summary
n Tharammel Peethambaran v. T. Ushakrishnan, the dispute arose from the sale of immovable property executed by the defendant acting as an alleged agent of the plaintiff under a Power of Attorney (PoA).
The plaintiff claimed that the PoA granted only limited authority for property management and did not authorise sale. However, the defendant relied on a notarised photocopy of a PoA to justify the execution of sale deeds in favour of third parties.
The Trial Court held the sale deeds invalid as the PoA relied upon by the defendant appeared manipulated and the original document was not produced. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision, accepting the photocopy as secondary evidence and validating the sale.
The High Court, in second appeal, restored the Trial Court’s decree, holding that the photocopy of the PoA was inadmissible because the requirements for admitting secondary evidence under Sections 63–65 of the Evidence Act were not satisfied.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment, holding that a photocopy of a document cannot be relied upon unless the party establishes the foundational facts required for secondary evidence and explains the non-production of the original.
Headnote
A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Scope of interference by High Court — Held, High Court can interfere with findings of fact where such findings are based on misreading of evidence, reliance on inadmissible evidence, or are perverse — Interference justified where lower appellate court relied on inadmissible secondary evidence — Judgment of High Court upheld. B. Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 63, 64, 65 — Secondary Evidence — Admissibility — Photocopy of document cannot be treated as evidence unless foundational facts for production of secondary evidence are established — Party must prove existence and execution of original document and provide valid explanation for non-production — Failure to follow procedure renders photocopy inadmissible. C. Power of Attorney — Authority to alienate property — Burden of proof — Agent claiming authority to sell property must prove existence and validity of Power of Attorney — Where alleged PoA produced only as notarised photocopy without complying with requirements of secondary evidence, authority to alienate cannot be established — Sale deeds executed on such basis invalid. D. Evidence Act — Section 85 — Presumption regarding Power of Attorney — Presumption applies only when Power of Attorney is properly proved and admissible in evidence — In absence of original or valid secondary evidence, presumption under Section 85 cannot be invoked. E. Documentary Evidence — Comparison of signatures by court — Courts should not compare disputed signatures with non-admitted signatures without expert assistance — Such comparison may lead to erroneous findings.
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of Consideration was whether the Power of Attorney allegedly executed by the Plaintiff authorized the 1st Defendant to sell the properties and whether the resulting sale deeds were valid
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s judgment declaring the sale deeds invalid, holding that the alleged Power of Attorney relied upon by the defendants was inadmissible as it was only a photocopy produced without complying with the legal requirements for secondary evidence.
