Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 343
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________ OF 2025
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETETION (CIVIL) NO. 9472 OF 2023)
V. RAVIKUMAR …Appellant
-Versus-
S. KUMAR …Respondent
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The rejection of a plaint on the ground of
limitation was reversed by the High Court. The
defendant in the suit is the appellant herein who
assails the decision of the learned Single Judge
reckoning limitation from the cancellation of a power
of attorney; which power of attorney itself was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2025.03.07
18:45:37 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 8
executed long back, pursuant to which sale deeds
were also executed.
3. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for
declaration and injunction; declaration, that the
various sale deeds entered into and executed on the
strength of the power of attorney are null and void
and injunction, to restrain the defendant
permanently from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
The first defendant, the power holder filed an
application under Order VII Rule 11 read with
Sections 10, 11 and 150 of the C.P.C. (Civil
Procedure Code) clearly alleging that the suit was
barred by limitation. The Trial Court mindful of the
caution in considering an application under Order
VII Rule 11, that normally such an application
would not require an elaborate examination of the
Page 2 of 8
documents produced; which has to be done at the
time of trial, all the same found that the clear facts
coming out even from the averments would indicate
that the suit is barred by limitation.
4. The general power of attorney executed by
the plaintiff in the name of the first respondent was
dated 15.10.2004 and the sale deeds sought to be
declared null and void are of the years 2004-06 and
2009. The plaintiff’s contention itself was that he
was made aware of the sale deeds only on
21.09.2015; within three years of which the suit
was filed on 20.09.2018. The Trial Court found that
attached to the general power of attorney; filed as
th
the 26 document, along with the plaint, was a
patta obtained on 10.01.2015 which clearly
indicated conveyance to the various defendants and
hence as on 10.01.2015 itself, the plaintiff was in
Page 3 of 8
the know of the transactions made on the strength
of the power of attorney. It was found that the suit
was clearly barred by limitation, even from the date
of knowledge and the plaint was rejected.
5. In appeal, the High Court found that the
power of attorney stood cancelled only on
22.09.2015 and the limitation has to commence
from the date of such cancellation. The High Court
directed the suit to be restored to the files of the
Trial Court for proceeding on merits in accordance
with law.
6. Learned Counsel, Ms. Haripriya
Padmanabhan, appearing for the appellant herein
contended that limitation cannot commence from
the date of cancellation of the power of attorney.
Admittedly there was a power of attorney executed
Page 4 of 8
on the strength of which the appellant had effected
conveyances which cannot be unsettled after more
than a decade.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent-plaintiff would on the other hand submit
that the transactions were collusive, insofar as the
power holder had transferred the properties to his
own wife and having got back the conveyance in his
name, clearly a fraud was played on the plaintiff and
the judgment of the High Court has to be upheld.
8. As is clear from the records, the
respondent-plaintiff does not at all dispute the
execution of the general power of attorney, which
was also executed as far back as in the year 2004.
There were conveyances made by the power holder
clearly on the strength of the power conferred on
Page 5 of 8
him. The attempt of the plaintiff is to unsettle
settled matters especially on the plea that the power
of attorney granted in the year 2004 was cancelled
in the year 2015. We are clear in our minds that the
cancellation does not affect the prior conveyances
made which are clearly on the strength of the power
conferred on the appellant. There is no contention
raised as to the power of attorney having not
conferred the power to enter into conveyances or
that such power of attorney was executed by reason
of a fraud or coercion employed on the executant.
The power holder having exercised the authority
conferred; to convey the properties in the name of
the purchasers, the cancellation of the power of
attorney will have no effect on the conveyances
carried out under the valid power conferred. Nor
would it confer the person who executed the power
Page 6 of 8
of attorney any cause of action, by virtue of a
cancellation of the power conferred by a subsequent
document, to challenge the valid exercise of the
power when it existed.
9. We are definitely of the opinion that the
High Court had erroneously treated the cancellation
as the point of commencement of limitation. We do
not place any reliance on the knowledge attributed
to the plaintiff as on 10.01.2015 by the Trial Court
in its order; which is argued by the respondent to be
without any basis. The power of attorney has been
executed in 2004 and the conveyances having been
made in the years between 2004-09, there cannot be
any cause of action ferreted out on the basis of the
cancellation of the power of attorney, after more
than 11 years. We set aside the impugned order of
Page 7 of 8
the High Court and affirm the rejection of the plaint
as ordered by the Trial Court.
10. The appeal stands allowed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………………..……………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………………..……………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 03, 2025.
Page 8 of 8
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________ OF 2025
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETETION (CIVIL) NO. 9472 OF 2023)
V. RAVIKUMAR …Appellant
-Versus-
S. KUMAR …Respondent
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The rejection of a plaint on the ground of
limitation was reversed by the High Court. The
defendant in the suit is the appellant herein who
assails the decision of the learned Single Judge
reckoning limitation from the cancellation of a power
of attorney; which power of attorney itself was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2025.03.07
18:45:37 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 8
executed long back, pursuant to which sale deeds
were also executed.
3. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for
declaration and injunction; declaration, that the
various sale deeds entered into and executed on the
strength of the power of attorney are null and void
and injunction, to restrain the defendant
permanently from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
The first defendant, the power holder filed an
application under Order VII Rule 11 read with
Sections 10, 11 and 150 of the C.P.C. (Civil
Procedure Code) clearly alleging that the suit was
barred by limitation. The Trial Court mindful of the
caution in considering an application under Order
VII Rule 11, that normally such an application
would not require an elaborate examination of the
Page 2 of 8
documents produced; which has to be done at the
time of trial, all the same found that the clear facts
coming out even from the averments would indicate
that the suit is barred by limitation.
4. The general power of attorney executed by
the plaintiff in the name of the first respondent was
dated 15.10.2004 and the sale deeds sought to be
declared null and void are of the years 2004-06 and
2009. The plaintiff’s contention itself was that he
was made aware of the sale deeds only on
21.09.2015; within three years of which the suit
was filed on 20.09.2018. The Trial Court found that
attached to the general power of attorney; filed as
th
the 26 document, along with the plaint, was a
patta obtained on 10.01.2015 which clearly
indicated conveyance to the various defendants and
hence as on 10.01.2015 itself, the plaintiff was in
Page 3 of 8
the know of the transactions made on the strength
of the power of attorney. It was found that the suit
was clearly barred by limitation, even from the date
of knowledge and the plaint was rejected.
5. In appeal, the High Court found that the
power of attorney stood cancelled only on
22.09.2015 and the limitation has to commence
from the date of such cancellation. The High Court
directed the suit to be restored to the files of the
Trial Court for proceeding on merits in accordance
with law.
6. Learned Counsel, Ms. Haripriya
Padmanabhan, appearing for the appellant herein
contended that limitation cannot commence from
the date of cancellation of the power of attorney.
Admittedly there was a power of attorney executed
Page 4 of 8
on the strength of which the appellant had effected
conveyances which cannot be unsettled after more
than a decade.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent-plaintiff would on the other hand submit
that the transactions were collusive, insofar as the
power holder had transferred the properties to his
own wife and having got back the conveyance in his
name, clearly a fraud was played on the plaintiff and
the judgment of the High Court has to be upheld.
8. As is clear from the records, the
respondent-plaintiff does not at all dispute the
execution of the general power of attorney, which
was also executed as far back as in the year 2004.
There were conveyances made by the power holder
clearly on the strength of the power conferred on
Page 5 of 8
him. The attempt of the plaintiff is to unsettle
settled matters especially on the plea that the power
of attorney granted in the year 2004 was cancelled
in the year 2015. We are clear in our minds that the
cancellation does not affect the prior conveyances
made which are clearly on the strength of the power
conferred on the appellant. There is no contention
raised as to the power of attorney having not
conferred the power to enter into conveyances or
that such power of attorney was executed by reason
of a fraud or coercion employed on the executant.
The power holder having exercised the authority
conferred; to convey the properties in the name of
the purchasers, the cancellation of the power of
attorney will have no effect on the conveyances
carried out under the valid power conferred. Nor
would it confer the person who executed the power
Page 6 of 8
of attorney any cause of action, by virtue of a
cancellation of the power conferred by a subsequent
document, to challenge the valid exercise of the
power when it existed.
9. We are definitely of the opinion that the
High Court had erroneously treated the cancellation
as the point of commencement of limitation. We do
not place any reliance on the knowledge attributed
to the plaintiff as on 10.01.2015 by the Trial Court
in its order; which is argued by the respondent to be
without any basis. The power of attorney has been
executed in 2004 and the conveyances having been
made in the years between 2004-09, there cannot be
any cause of action ferreted out on the basis of the
cancellation of the power of attorney, after more
than 11 years. We set aside the impugned order of
Page 7 of 8
the High Court and affirm the rejection of the plaint
as ordered by the Trial Court.
10. The appeal stands allowed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………………..……………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………………..……………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 03, 2025.
Page 8 of 8