The Supreme Court has dismissed a civil appeal challenging the Kerala High Court’s decision that invalidated two property sale deeds executed on the strength of a disputed Power of Attorney (PoA) and held that a notarised photocopy of a Power of Attorney, without following the mandatory procedure for leading secondary evidence, cannot confer authority to sell immovable property.
The Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti has observed that a photocopy of a Power of Attorney is merely secondary evidence. Unless the party relying on it first establishes the existence of the original and explains its non-production in terms of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act, such a document cannot be relied upon. The Supreme Court criticised the First Appellate Court for relying on inadmissible evidence and for comparing disputed signatures without proper legal basis, calling such findings perverse.
The dispute arose out of a family conflict between a sister and her brother over three items of immovable property situated in Kozhikode, Kerala. The plaintiff, who resides in Mumbai, was the undisputed owner of the suit properties. In 1998, she executed a Power of Attorney in favour of her brother (the first defendant), allegedly limited to management purposes.
In 2007, the brother executed two registered sale deeds in favour of third parties, claiming authority under the Power of Attorney. The sister challenged these transactions, alleging that she never granted authority to sell the properties. The Power of Attorney relied upon by the defendant was fabricated and interpolated. The clauses relating to sale were fraudulently inserted later.
The Trial Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, declaring the sale deeds void and holding that the defendant had exceeded his authority. It found suspicious alterations in the Power of Attorney and noted the failure of the defendant to produce its original.
However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, accepting a notarised photocopy of the Power of Attorney as valid secondary evidence and holding that the plaintiff had received the sale consideration.
The Kerala High Court, in second appeal, restored the Trial Court’s findings, holding that the photocopy of the Power of Attorney was inadmissible in evidence, as the mandatory conditions under the Indian Evidence Act for proving secondary evidence were not satisfied.
The statutory presumption under Section 85 of the Evidence Act regarding Powers of Attorney applies only when the document itself is properly proved. A presumption cannot be drawn from an unproven photocopy.
Rejecting the appellants’ argument that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court clarified that interference was justified because the First Appellate Court’s findings were based on no legal evidence, raising a substantial question of law. Since the authority to sell was not proved in accordance with law, the sale deeds executed by the agent were held to be void and non-binding on the true owner.
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, affirming that the Power of Attorney relied upon by the defendants was not legally proved. The sale deeds executed on its basis were invalid. The High Court rightly restored the Trial Court’s decree in favour of the plaintiff.
Case Details
Case Title: Tharammel Peethambaran And Another Versus T. Ushakrishnan And Another
Case No.: SLP (C) NO. 11868 OF 2024
Date: 06/02/2026
