Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 35
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3894 OF 2022
MUSLIMVEETIL CHALAKKAL
AHAMMED HAJI …. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SAKEENA BEEVI ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3895 OF 2022
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
Civil Appeal No(s). 3894 of 2022
1. Heard.
2. The present appeal is directed against the final
th
judgment and order dated 16 October, 2020, passed
1
by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in R.F.A.
No. 267 of 2016, whereby the first appeal preferred
2
by Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji came to
1
Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
2
Hereinafter, referred to as the “plaintiff-appellant”.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.01.07
19:25:52 IST
Reason:
1
be dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree
th
dated 30 October, 2015, rendered by the Sub-
3
Judge, Chavakkad in Original Suit No.862 of 2013,
by which the suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant
seeking specific performance of agreement to sell was
dismissed.
Factual Background
3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant and essential
for the disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.
4. The plaint schedule property admeasuring
approximately three acres thirty-five cents fell to the
share of Shri Buquarayil Valappilakkayil Seethi
Thangal (hereinafter ‘Seethi Thangal’), father of the
4
respondent–Sakeena Beevi , by virtue of a registered
partition deed bearing No. 1274 of 1985, registered in
the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mullassery.
nd
5. Pursuant to the death of Seethi Thangal on 22
August, 2002, the plaint schedule property,
comprised in Survey No. 116/7 of Kundazhiyoor
Desom, together with the school building standing
thereon and all appurtenant improvements,
including ownership and management of the school,
3
Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.
4
Hereinafter, referred to as the “defendant-respondent”.
2
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
devolved upon his nine children, including the
defendant-respondent.
6. All the nine legal heirs of Seethi Thangal
executed an unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4)
in favour of the eldest son, Shri Muhammed Rafi
rd
Thangal, on 3 September, 2002. Subsequently, on
th
4 September, 2002, the respondent Sakeena Beevi
executed a separate registered power of attorney
(Exh. B1) in favour of her son Shri Rasheeq Ahmed
(DW-1).
7. The eldest brother, namely, Shri Muhammed
Rafi Thangal, executed an agreement for sale (Exh.
th
A1) dated 14 May, 2007 in favour of the plaintiff-
appellant for a total consideration of
Rs.2,70,00,000/-. A sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid
as an advance at the time of execution of the
agreement. The date of execution under the
agreement (Exh. A1) was extended on three
th th
occasions, i.e., on 14 April, 2008 [Exh. A1(a)], 7
th
August, 2010 [Exh. A1(b)], and 7 July, 2011 [Exh.
th
A1(c)]. On 14 November, 2012, the defendant-
respondent caused publication of a newspaper notice
revoking the unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4)
issued in favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal.
3
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
th
8. On 30 April, 2013, the defendant-respondent
executed an affidavit (Exh. A5) ratifying the power of
attorney (Exh. A4) and the acts carried out
thereunder, and further expressing her consent to
transfer her share in the plaint schedule property.
th
Thereafter, on 8 May, 2013, the remaining eight
siblings executed a sale deed conveying their
th
collective 10/11 share in the entire chunk of land
on which the school building exists in favour of the
plaintiff-appellant.
9. As the defendant-respondent refused to execute
the sale deed in respect of her share, the plaintiff-
appellant instituted a suit for specific performance in
the year 2013, which came to be registered as O.S.
No. 862 of 2013 before the trial Court.
10. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment
th
and decree dated 30 October, 2015, primarily on the
ground of limitation, and consequently denied the
relief of specific performance as well as the alternate
relief of refund of the advance amount to the plaintiff-
appellant.
11. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff–appellant
preferred an appeal before the High Court, which,
while reversing certain findings recorded by the trial
4
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
Court, ultimately dismissed the suit on the grounds
of lack of readiness and willingness on the part of the
plaintiff-appellant to get the sale deed executed, as
required under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as well
as on the ground of limitation.
12. The High Court held that the plaintiff-appellant
failed to establish his continued readiness and
willingness to perform the contract. It was observed
that the payments made and the endorsements
extending the agreement were obtained only from
Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal, the brother of the
defendant–respondent, who lacked valid authority to
execute and extend the contract after the defendant–
respondent had executed a registered power of
attorney (Exh.B1) in favour of her son Shri Rafeeq
Ahmed (DW-1) thereby, by a deeming fiction,
revoking the earlier unregistered power of attorney.
Consequently, the payments made to Shri
Muhammed Rafi Thangal were held not to be binding
on the defendant–respondent.
13. The High Court further held that the agreement
had become time-barred, observing that the breach
th
on the part of the plaintiff-appellant occurred on 14
July, 2008, whereas the suit came to be instituted in
5
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
the year 2013, well beyond the period of three years
prescribed under Article 54 of the Schedule to the
Limitation Act, 1963.
14. The above judgment of the High Court is the
subject matter of challenge in the present appeal by
way of special leave.
15. It needs to be noted that during the pendency of
the appeal, the parties were referred to mediation;
however, the mediation efforts did not fructify in a
settlement. Further, during the course of the hearing,
Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned senior counsel
appearing for the plaintiff-appellant, on instructions,
offered a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- to the defendant-
th
respondent, as fair value for her 1/11 share which
offer was declined outright.
Submissions on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant
16. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned senior counsel
appearing for the plaintiff-appellant urged that
although the plaintiff-appellant could have
th
relinquished the said 1/11 share of the defendant-
respondent in plaint schedule property, such a
course would render the functioning of the school
unviable and in breach of the requirements under the
Kerala Education Rules, 1959, which mandates a
6
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
minimum extent of three acres of land for running a
higher secondary school.
17. Shri Agrawal drew the Court’s attention to the
th
affidavit (Exh. A5) dated 30 April, 2013 sworn by the
defendant-respondent, whereby the agreement in
favour of the plaintiff–appellant was affirmed and
ratified. The said affidavit (Exh. A5) is an admitted
document and reads as under: -
“I, Mrs. B.V. Sakeena Beevi, aged 59 years,
presently residing at Bukharyil Valapil House,
W/o Fakrudheen Thangal, Bukharayil
Ayittandiyil, Mathilakam Post - 680 685 do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as follows:
That myself one the legal heirs of deceased Mr.
B.V. seethe Thangal, Ex. M.L.A., along with other
legal heirs, had executed a valid power of attorney
in favour of Mr. B.V. Muhammed Raphy Thangal,
residing at Bukharayil Valappil house,
Venkitangu, P.O. Padoor, on 3rd September 2002
regarding the property in Re-Survey No. 116/7 in
Padoor Desam, Situated within the Mullassery
Sub registrar Office. While the Power of Attorney
to various officials including the Assistant
Educational Officer, Mullassery. Now we have
amicably settled all disputes and I hereby
ratify the acts of the said Power of Attorney
Holder Mr. B.V. Muhammed Raphy Thangal. I
have no objection to perform all acts, deeds
and things as assigned in the said Power of
Attorney Holder Mr. B.V. Muhammed Raphy
Thangal. I have no objection to perform all
acts, deeds and things as assigned in the said
Power of Attorney by me. I do hereby undertake
to carry out the terms and conditions set out in
the said Power of Attorney by me. I do hereby
7
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
undertake to carry out the terms and conditions
set out in the said Power of Attorney and I will be
personally bound by the terms and also I will be
personally present whenever necessary. I have no
objections in changing management involving
ownership of Aleemul Islam Higher Secondary
School, and ownership of properties of the
above said school, in favour of Mr. Ahammed
Haji, S/o Moidunni, Muslim Veettil Chalakkal
House, Kundaliyoor desom, Engandiyoor
amsom, as already submitted through my
power of attorney holder.
What is stated above is true to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Dated this the 30th day of April, 2013.”
[Emphasis supplied]
18. Shri Agrawal contended that once the
defendant–respondent had agreed to the terms of the
transaction and expressly conveyed her no-objection
for transfer of ownership of the plaint schedule
property through her power of attorney holder Shri
Muhammed Rafi Thangal, the power of attorney
executed (Exh. A4) in his favour, by necessary
implication, stood ratified and reaffirmed, and the
acts performed by the said power of attorney holder
could not thereafter be questioned or doubted in a
Court of law. He further urged that the findings
recorded by the trial Court as well as the High Court,
holding that the unregistered power of attorney (Exh.
A4) executed by the defendant-respondent in favour
8
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
of her brother, Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal, stood
th
revoked with effect from 4 September, 2002, are
contrary to the material available on record and
suffer from manifest error.
19.
He further drew the Court’s attention to the
written statement filed by the defendant–respondent,
wherein the validity of the agreement was expressly
admitted, and the only objection raised pertained to
limitation. It was pointed out that in the written
statement, the defendant–respondent admitted that
th
the agreement dated 14 May, 2007 (Exh.A1), was
negotiated on her behalf by her son, Shri Rasheeq
Ahmed, acting as her power of attorney holder. It was
reiterated by learned senior counsel that the
subsequent acts performed by Shri Muhammed Rafi
Thangal were duly and expressly ratified by the
defendant–respondent.
20. He further submitted that in the entire written
statement, the defendant–respondent did not deny or
th
dispute the affidavit (Exh. A5) dated 30 April, 2013,
affirming her ratification of all the acts done by Shri
Muhammed Rafi Thangal in furtherance of the
unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4).
9
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
21. Shri Agrawal also pointed out that the stand
taken by the defendant–respondent that the
unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4) executed in
th
favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi stood revoked on 4
September, 2002 upon execution of the registered
power of attorney (Exh. B1) in favour of her son Shri
Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1), is belied by the fact that she
herself affirmed validity of the agreement (Exh. A1)
th
dated 14 May, 2007 which was executed by Shri
Muhammed Rafi Thangal on strength of the disputed
unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4).
th
Furthermore, she issued a notice dated 10
November, 2012 to Shri Muhammed Rafi and the
educational authorities, for the first time, expressing
her intent to revoke the said unregistered power of
attorney (Exh. A4).
22. He further submitted that the trial Court had
affirmed the evidentiary value of the affidavit (Exh.A5)
by treating it as an admission of the defendant–
respondent, but thereafter proceeded to discard the
said document on the basis of the testimony of Shri
Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1), the son of the defendant-
respondent. It was urged that if the defendant–
respondent had any intention to prove revocation of
10
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
the power of attorney executed in favour of Shri
Muhammed Rafi Thangal (Exh. A4) or to disown the
affidavit (Exh. A5), she ought to have stepped into the
witness box herself. However, admittedly, the
defendant–respondent did not enter the witness box
during the trial.
23. He, therefore, urged that it is a fit case wherein
this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India for balancing
the equites by setting aside the impugned judgment
and directing the specific performance of the
th
agreement to the extent of the 1/11 share of the
respondent-defendant.
Submissions on behalf of the defendant-
respondent
24. Per contra , Ms. Menaka Guruswamy, learned
senior counsel appearing for the defendant–
respondent, vehemently and fervently opposed the
submissions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff–
appellant. She submitted that the power of attorney
(Exh. A4) executed in favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi
Thangal was an unregistered document, whereas the
power of attorney executed (Exh. B1) in favour of Shri
Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1), the son of the defendant–
11
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
respondent, was a registered instrument. It was
contended that upon execution of the registered
power of attorney (Exh. B1), the earlier unregistered
power of attorney (Exh. A4) stood automatically
revoked.
25. Without prejudice to the above, she further
contended that the unregistered power of attorney
(Exh. A4) executed by the defendant-respondent in
favour of her brother, Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal,
did not authorise him to convey the plaint schedule
property to any third party without the express
consent of the executant, and, therefore, the
defendant–respondent could not be bound by the
acts undertaken by Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal
acting under the unregistered power of attorney (Exh.
A4). It was further submitted that the original
agreement (Exh. A1) the parties, bearing the
inter se
endorsement of Shri Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1), the son
of the defendant–respondent and her power of
th
attorney, was executed on 14 May, 2007, and only
a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid as advance at the
time of its execution. It was urged that the suit came
to be instituted in the year 2013 and was thus clearly
12
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
barred by limitation in view of the Article 54 of
Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.
26. She further submitted that the affidavit (Exh.
A5) was executed solely with a view to facilitating the
continued functioning of the school and not for the
purpose of transferring the share of the defendant-
respondent in the suit property. It was contended
that the said document was, therefore, rightly not
relied upon by the trial Court as well as the High
Court in favour of the plaintiff–appellant. She further
submitted that the defendant–respondent is willing to
make a counter offer to purchase the entire property
for a consideration of Rs. 3 crores, being the amount
originally stipulated under the agreement (Exh. A1).
27. She, therefore, urged that this Court ought not
to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts
recorded by the trial Court and the High Court,
whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant
was dismissed.
Discussion and Analysis
28. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at bar and have gone
through the material available on record.
13
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
29. At the outset, it may be noted that the plaint
th
schedule 1/11 share of the defendant-respondent
forms part of a larger tract of land admeasuring three
acres thirty-five cents originally owned by her late
father Shri Seethi Thangal. A school was built on the
entire three acres area and is presently being run by
the plaintiff-appellant.
30. The plaintiff-appellant has consistently asserted
that, having regard to the requirements of the Kerala
Education Rules, 1959, the campus of a higher
secondary school cannot be reduced below three
acres and, but for such statutory constraint, he
would have conveniently given up the claim for the
th
1/11 share of the defendant-respondent in the
plaint schedule property.
31. It is further a matter of record that during the
course of hearing of the appeal, this Court made
efforts to facilitate a settlement through mediation,
and the plaintiff-appellant offered a handsome
amount of Rs.75 lakhs to the defendant-respondent.
However, the said offer was point-blank refused by
the defendant-respondent, who seems to have been
overcome by greed owing to the difficulty faced by the
plaintiff-appellant who would risk losing the right to
14
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
operate the school in case the land area is reduced to
less than three acres.
32. It is in this background that we shall now
proceed to examine the material available on record
to determine whether the view taken by the High
Court in affirming the rejection of the suit by the trial
Court is justified.
33. The High Court dismissed the suit primarily on
two grounds, namely: -
(i) The failure of the plaintiff-appellant to
establish readiness and willingness to
perform his obligations under the contract
(Exh.A-1);
(ii) limitation.
34. On the first aspect, it may be noted that the
th
factum of three extensions dated 14 April, 2008
th
(executed by all nine co-sharers); 7 August, 2010
th
and 7 July, 2011(executed by the power of attorney
holder, Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal), stands duly
proved by the plaintiff-appellant through
unimpeachable and credible evidence. It was only on
th
14 November, 2012, that the defendant-respondent,
for the first time, caused publication of a newspaper
notice purporting to revoke the power of attorney
15
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
executed in favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal.
Furthermore, the defendant-respondent does not
even dispute the validity of the agreement (Exh. A1)
th
dated 14 May, 2007 which was executed by Shri
Muhammed Rafi Thangal acting on the unregistered
power of attorney (Exh. A4). In this backdrop, the
theory projected by the respondent that the power of
attorney executed by her in favour of Shri
Muhammed Rafi Thangal stood revoked as far back
as the year 2002 is ex facie untenable and contrary
to the record.
35. The most crucial and vital document, which, in
our considered view, tilts the balance in favour of the
plaintiff-appellant, is the affidavit (Exh. A5) executed
th
by the defendant on 30 April, 2013. The execution
of the said affidavit (Exh. A5) was neither disputed
nor denied by the defendant–respondent, who
admittedly did not enter the witness box in the suit
proceedings. Instead, her son Shri Rasheeq Ahmed
alone was examined as DW-1. A plain reading of the
affidavit, particularly the highlighted portions ( supra )
thereof, clearly establish that the defendant–
respondent not only ratified the acts performed by
the power of attorney holder, her brother Shri
16
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
Muhammed Rafi Thangal, but also expressly
conveyed her no-objection to the change in
management and so also the ownership of the school
and the properties appurtenant thereto in favour of
the plaintiff-appellant. Once the two facts, i.e., the
publication of notice in the year 2012 for revocation
of the unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4) and
th
the affidavit dated 30 April, 2013 are cumulatively
taken into account, manifestly, limitation would start
running from the later date because it is, at that
stage, that the respondent-defendant finally refused
execution of sale deed to the extent of her share in
the suit property.
36. In this backdrop, we are of the firm view that
the issue of limitation was erroneously decided by the
trial Court as well as the High Court, leading to an
unjustified rejection of the suit instituted by the
appellant.
37. As the execution of the affidavit (Exh. A5) is not
in dispute, the period of limitation would commence
th
from the said date, i.e., 30 April, 2013. We have no
hesitation in holding that the suit was instituted
within the prescribed period of limitation, reckoned
from the date of the affidavit. The said affidavit (Exh.
17
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
A5) not only ratifies the acts performed by the power
of attorney holder Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal but
also records the unequivocal no-objection of the
executant–defendant to transfer the ownership of the
property in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.
38. There is no dispute that pursuant to the last
extension, the plaintiff-appellant paid the remaining
sale consideration which was accepted by eight co-
sharers of the defendant-respondent and the partial
sale deed to that extent, stood executed in his favour
th
on 8 May, 2013. Thus, the issue of readiness and
willingness was also wrongly decided against the
plaintiff-appellant and in favour of the defendant-
respondent.
39. In this background, we are of the firm opinion
that the High Court committed grave error in the
facts as well as in law in dismissing the appeal suit
filed by the plaintiff-appellant and affirming the
judgment of the trial Court.
40. The impugned judgments do not stand to
scrutiny and are hereby set aside.
41. The plaintiff-appellant is held entitled to
th
conveyance of the 1/11 share of the defendant–
respondent in the plaint schedule property. The trial
18
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
Court shall determine the balance sale consideration
payable to the defendant-respondent, having regard
to the original consideration stipulated in the
principal agreement for sale (Exh. A1), and shall
apply simple interest at the rate of 9% thereon. The
appellant shall deposit the said amount before the
trial Court within a period of two months from the
date of such determination, whereupon a registered
sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property
shall be executed in favour of the appellant.
42. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs.
43. Decree be prepared accordingly.
44. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3895 OF 2022
45. This appeal is preferred against the interim
th
order dated 19 November, 2021 passed by the High
Court in Writ Appeal No.1425 of 2021.
46. The writ appeal was preferred by defendant-
respondent Sakeena Beevi through her power of
attorney holder Shri Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1),
th
assailing the order dated 11 October, 2021 passed
by the learned Single Judge. By the said order,
learned Single Judge upheld the decision of the
19
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
Director of Public Instruction (DPI) rejecting the
representation preferred by the writ petitioner
against the proposed assignment of the ownership
and management of Aleemul Islam Higher Secondary
School, Padoor to the plaintiff-appellant (respondent
No. 3 before the High Court). Accordingly, the writ
petition was dismissed and the order of the DPI was
affirmed.
47. The writ petitioner alleged that since she had
not agreed to sell her share from the joint family land
on which the school existed, the total land area of the
school fell below 3 acres mandatorily required to
operate a higher secondary school as per Rule 5A
Chapter 3 of the Kerala Education Rules, 2005. The
DPI, however, rejected the representation of the writ
petitioner. As stated above, the writ petition also
came to be rejected.
48. During the pendency of the writ appeal, the
District Education Officer (DEO), Chavakkad, by
th
order dated 15 November, 2021 recognised the
plaintiff-appellant as the Manager of the school w.e.f.
rd
3 September, 2019.
49. The Division Bench stayed the effective
operation of the order of learned Single Judge dated
20
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
th th
11 October, 2021 and also the order dated 15
November, 2021 passed by the DEO during pendency
of the writ appeal. Consequently, the management of
the school was directed to be vested with the DEO,
Chavakkad. While providing for this interim
arrangement, the Division Bench directed the DEO to
discharge the functions of the Manager on the joint
instructions of the writ petitioner and the plaintiff-
appellant.
50. Learned counsel representing the State of
Kerala vehemently and fervently contended that
looking to the disputes pending between the parties
th
pertaining to 1/11 share of the defendant (writ
appellant) in the suit schedule property, the High
Court, rightly passed the impugned order making an
interim arrangement for management of the school
so that the functioning thereof would not suffer. He
urged that as the DEO has been ordered to act under
the instructions of the writ petitioner as well as the
plaintiff-appellant herein, no prejudice would be
caused to any of the parties in continuing such
arrangement.
51. By way of judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.
3894 of 2022, we have granted the decree of specific
21
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
performance in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. In
view of the above decision, manifestly, the plaintiff-
appellant would have available to him the full tract of
3 acres land for running the school as required under
the Kerala Education Rules, 2005.
52. Hence, there is no further requirement of
continuing the interim arrangement as directed by
the High Court by the impugned order.
th
53. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19
November, 2021 passed by the High Court is set
aside.
54. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs.
55. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 07, 2026.
22
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3894 OF 2022
MUSLIMVEETIL CHALAKKAL
AHAMMED HAJI …. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SAKEENA BEEVI ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3895 OF 2022
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
Civil Appeal No(s). 3894 of 2022
1. Heard.
2. The present appeal is directed against the final
th
judgment and order dated 16 October, 2020, passed
1
by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in R.F.A.
No. 267 of 2016, whereby the first appeal preferred
2
by Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji came to
1
Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
2
Hereinafter, referred to as the “plaintiff-appellant”.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.01.07
19:25:52 IST
Reason:
1
be dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree
th
dated 30 October, 2015, rendered by the Sub-
3
Judge, Chavakkad in Original Suit No.862 of 2013,
by which the suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant
seeking specific performance of agreement to sell was
dismissed.
Factual Background
3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant and essential
for the disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.
4. The plaint schedule property admeasuring
approximately three acres thirty-five cents fell to the
share of Shri Buquarayil Valappilakkayil Seethi
Thangal (hereinafter ‘Seethi Thangal’), father of the
4
respondent–Sakeena Beevi , by virtue of a registered
partition deed bearing No. 1274 of 1985, registered in
the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mullassery.
nd
5. Pursuant to the death of Seethi Thangal on 22
August, 2002, the plaint schedule property,
comprised in Survey No. 116/7 of Kundazhiyoor
Desom, together with the school building standing
thereon and all appurtenant improvements,
including ownership and management of the school,
3
Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.
4
Hereinafter, referred to as the “defendant-respondent”.
2
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
devolved upon his nine children, including the
defendant-respondent.
6. All the nine legal heirs of Seethi Thangal
executed an unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4)
in favour of the eldest son, Shri Muhammed Rafi
rd
Thangal, on 3 September, 2002. Subsequently, on
th
4 September, 2002, the respondent Sakeena Beevi
executed a separate registered power of attorney
(Exh. B1) in favour of her son Shri Rasheeq Ahmed
(DW-1).
7. The eldest brother, namely, Shri Muhammed
Rafi Thangal, executed an agreement for sale (Exh.
th
A1) dated 14 May, 2007 in favour of the plaintiff-
appellant for a total consideration of
Rs.2,70,00,000/-. A sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid
as an advance at the time of execution of the
agreement. The date of execution under the
agreement (Exh. A1) was extended on three
th th
occasions, i.e., on 14 April, 2008 [Exh. A1(a)], 7
th
August, 2010 [Exh. A1(b)], and 7 July, 2011 [Exh.
th
A1(c)]. On 14 November, 2012, the defendant-
respondent caused publication of a newspaper notice
revoking the unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4)
issued in favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal.
3
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
th
8. On 30 April, 2013, the defendant-respondent
executed an affidavit (Exh. A5) ratifying the power of
attorney (Exh. A4) and the acts carried out
thereunder, and further expressing her consent to
transfer her share in the plaint schedule property.
th
Thereafter, on 8 May, 2013, the remaining eight
siblings executed a sale deed conveying their
th
collective 10/11 share in the entire chunk of land
on which the school building exists in favour of the
plaintiff-appellant.
9. As the defendant-respondent refused to execute
the sale deed in respect of her share, the plaintiff-
appellant instituted a suit for specific performance in
the year 2013, which came to be registered as O.S.
No. 862 of 2013 before the trial Court.
10. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment
th
and decree dated 30 October, 2015, primarily on the
ground of limitation, and consequently denied the
relief of specific performance as well as the alternate
relief of refund of the advance amount to the plaintiff-
appellant.
11. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff–appellant
preferred an appeal before the High Court, which,
while reversing certain findings recorded by the trial
4
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
Court, ultimately dismissed the suit on the grounds
of lack of readiness and willingness on the part of the
plaintiff-appellant to get the sale deed executed, as
required under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as well
as on the ground of limitation.
12. The High Court held that the plaintiff-appellant
failed to establish his continued readiness and
willingness to perform the contract. It was observed
that the payments made and the endorsements
extending the agreement were obtained only from
Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal, the brother of the
defendant–respondent, who lacked valid authority to
execute and extend the contract after the defendant–
respondent had executed a registered power of
attorney (Exh.B1) in favour of her son Shri Rafeeq
Ahmed (DW-1) thereby, by a deeming fiction,
revoking the earlier unregistered power of attorney.
Consequently, the payments made to Shri
Muhammed Rafi Thangal were held not to be binding
on the defendant–respondent.
13. The High Court further held that the agreement
had become time-barred, observing that the breach
th
on the part of the plaintiff-appellant occurred on 14
July, 2008, whereas the suit came to be instituted in
5
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
the year 2013, well beyond the period of three years
prescribed under Article 54 of the Schedule to the
Limitation Act, 1963.
14. The above judgment of the High Court is the
subject matter of challenge in the present appeal by
way of special leave.
15. It needs to be noted that during the pendency of
the appeal, the parties were referred to mediation;
however, the mediation efforts did not fructify in a
settlement. Further, during the course of the hearing,
Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned senior counsel
appearing for the plaintiff-appellant, on instructions,
offered a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- to the defendant-
th
respondent, as fair value for her 1/11 share which
offer was declined outright.
Submissions on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant
16. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned senior counsel
appearing for the plaintiff-appellant urged that
although the plaintiff-appellant could have
th
relinquished the said 1/11 share of the defendant-
respondent in plaint schedule property, such a
course would render the functioning of the school
unviable and in breach of the requirements under the
Kerala Education Rules, 1959, which mandates a
6
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
minimum extent of three acres of land for running a
higher secondary school.
17. Shri Agrawal drew the Court’s attention to the
th
affidavit (Exh. A5) dated 30 April, 2013 sworn by the
defendant-respondent, whereby the agreement in
favour of the plaintiff–appellant was affirmed and
ratified. The said affidavit (Exh. A5) is an admitted
document and reads as under: -
“I, Mrs. B.V. Sakeena Beevi, aged 59 years,
presently residing at Bukharyil Valapil House,
W/o Fakrudheen Thangal, Bukharayil
Ayittandiyil, Mathilakam Post - 680 685 do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as follows:
That myself one the legal heirs of deceased Mr.
B.V. seethe Thangal, Ex. M.L.A., along with other
legal heirs, had executed a valid power of attorney
in favour of Mr. B.V. Muhammed Raphy Thangal,
residing at Bukharayil Valappil house,
Venkitangu, P.O. Padoor, on 3rd September 2002
regarding the property in Re-Survey No. 116/7 in
Padoor Desam, Situated within the Mullassery
Sub registrar Office. While the Power of Attorney
to various officials including the Assistant
Educational Officer, Mullassery. Now we have
amicably settled all disputes and I hereby
ratify the acts of the said Power of Attorney
Holder Mr. B.V. Muhammed Raphy Thangal. I
have no objection to perform all acts, deeds
and things as assigned in the said Power of
Attorney Holder Mr. B.V. Muhammed Raphy
Thangal. I have no objection to perform all
acts, deeds and things as assigned in the said
Power of Attorney by me. I do hereby undertake
to carry out the terms and conditions set out in
the said Power of Attorney by me. I do hereby
7
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
undertake to carry out the terms and conditions
set out in the said Power of Attorney and I will be
personally bound by the terms and also I will be
personally present whenever necessary. I have no
objections in changing management involving
ownership of Aleemul Islam Higher Secondary
School, and ownership of properties of the
above said school, in favour of Mr. Ahammed
Haji, S/o Moidunni, Muslim Veettil Chalakkal
House, Kundaliyoor desom, Engandiyoor
amsom, as already submitted through my
power of attorney holder.
What is stated above is true to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Dated this the 30th day of April, 2013.”
[Emphasis supplied]
18. Shri Agrawal contended that once the
defendant–respondent had agreed to the terms of the
transaction and expressly conveyed her no-objection
for transfer of ownership of the plaint schedule
property through her power of attorney holder Shri
Muhammed Rafi Thangal, the power of attorney
executed (Exh. A4) in his favour, by necessary
implication, stood ratified and reaffirmed, and the
acts performed by the said power of attorney holder
could not thereafter be questioned or doubted in a
Court of law. He further urged that the findings
recorded by the trial Court as well as the High Court,
holding that the unregistered power of attorney (Exh.
A4) executed by the defendant-respondent in favour
8
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
of her brother, Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal, stood
th
revoked with effect from 4 September, 2002, are
contrary to the material available on record and
suffer from manifest error.
19.
He further drew the Court’s attention to the
written statement filed by the defendant–respondent,
wherein the validity of the agreement was expressly
admitted, and the only objection raised pertained to
limitation. It was pointed out that in the written
statement, the defendant–respondent admitted that
th
the agreement dated 14 May, 2007 (Exh.A1), was
negotiated on her behalf by her son, Shri Rasheeq
Ahmed, acting as her power of attorney holder. It was
reiterated by learned senior counsel that the
subsequent acts performed by Shri Muhammed Rafi
Thangal were duly and expressly ratified by the
defendant–respondent.
20. He further submitted that in the entire written
statement, the defendant–respondent did not deny or
th
dispute the affidavit (Exh. A5) dated 30 April, 2013,
affirming her ratification of all the acts done by Shri
Muhammed Rafi Thangal in furtherance of the
unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4).
9
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
21. Shri Agrawal also pointed out that the stand
taken by the defendant–respondent that the
unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4) executed in
th
favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi stood revoked on 4
September, 2002 upon execution of the registered
power of attorney (Exh. B1) in favour of her son Shri
Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1), is belied by the fact that she
herself affirmed validity of the agreement (Exh. A1)
th
dated 14 May, 2007 which was executed by Shri
Muhammed Rafi Thangal on strength of the disputed
unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4).
th
Furthermore, she issued a notice dated 10
November, 2012 to Shri Muhammed Rafi and the
educational authorities, for the first time, expressing
her intent to revoke the said unregistered power of
attorney (Exh. A4).
22. He further submitted that the trial Court had
affirmed the evidentiary value of the affidavit (Exh.A5)
by treating it as an admission of the defendant–
respondent, but thereafter proceeded to discard the
said document on the basis of the testimony of Shri
Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1), the son of the defendant-
respondent. It was urged that if the defendant–
respondent had any intention to prove revocation of
10
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
the power of attorney executed in favour of Shri
Muhammed Rafi Thangal (Exh. A4) or to disown the
affidavit (Exh. A5), she ought to have stepped into the
witness box herself. However, admittedly, the
defendant–respondent did not enter the witness box
during the trial.
23. He, therefore, urged that it is a fit case wherein
this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India for balancing
the equites by setting aside the impugned judgment
and directing the specific performance of the
th
agreement to the extent of the 1/11 share of the
respondent-defendant.
Submissions on behalf of the defendant-
respondent
24. Per contra , Ms. Menaka Guruswamy, learned
senior counsel appearing for the defendant–
respondent, vehemently and fervently opposed the
submissions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff–
appellant. She submitted that the power of attorney
(Exh. A4) executed in favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi
Thangal was an unregistered document, whereas the
power of attorney executed (Exh. B1) in favour of Shri
Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1), the son of the defendant–
11
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
respondent, was a registered instrument. It was
contended that upon execution of the registered
power of attorney (Exh. B1), the earlier unregistered
power of attorney (Exh. A4) stood automatically
revoked.
25. Without prejudice to the above, she further
contended that the unregistered power of attorney
(Exh. A4) executed by the defendant-respondent in
favour of her brother, Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal,
did not authorise him to convey the plaint schedule
property to any third party without the express
consent of the executant, and, therefore, the
defendant–respondent could not be bound by the
acts undertaken by Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal
acting under the unregistered power of attorney (Exh.
A4). It was further submitted that the original
agreement (Exh. A1) the parties, bearing the
inter se
endorsement of Shri Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1), the son
of the defendant–respondent and her power of
th
attorney, was executed on 14 May, 2007, and only
a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid as advance at the
time of its execution. It was urged that the suit came
to be instituted in the year 2013 and was thus clearly
12
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
barred by limitation in view of the Article 54 of
Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.
26. She further submitted that the affidavit (Exh.
A5) was executed solely with a view to facilitating the
continued functioning of the school and not for the
purpose of transferring the share of the defendant-
respondent in the suit property. It was contended
that the said document was, therefore, rightly not
relied upon by the trial Court as well as the High
Court in favour of the plaintiff–appellant. She further
submitted that the defendant–respondent is willing to
make a counter offer to purchase the entire property
for a consideration of Rs. 3 crores, being the amount
originally stipulated under the agreement (Exh. A1).
27. She, therefore, urged that this Court ought not
to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts
recorded by the trial Court and the High Court,
whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant
was dismissed.
Discussion and Analysis
28. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at bar and have gone
through the material available on record.
13
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
29. At the outset, it may be noted that the plaint
th
schedule 1/11 share of the defendant-respondent
forms part of a larger tract of land admeasuring three
acres thirty-five cents originally owned by her late
father Shri Seethi Thangal. A school was built on the
entire three acres area and is presently being run by
the plaintiff-appellant.
30. The plaintiff-appellant has consistently asserted
that, having regard to the requirements of the Kerala
Education Rules, 1959, the campus of a higher
secondary school cannot be reduced below three
acres and, but for such statutory constraint, he
would have conveniently given up the claim for the
th
1/11 share of the defendant-respondent in the
plaint schedule property.
31. It is further a matter of record that during the
course of hearing of the appeal, this Court made
efforts to facilitate a settlement through mediation,
and the plaintiff-appellant offered a handsome
amount of Rs.75 lakhs to the defendant-respondent.
However, the said offer was point-blank refused by
the defendant-respondent, who seems to have been
overcome by greed owing to the difficulty faced by the
plaintiff-appellant who would risk losing the right to
14
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
operate the school in case the land area is reduced to
less than three acres.
32. It is in this background that we shall now
proceed to examine the material available on record
to determine whether the view taken by the High
Court in affirming the rejection of the suit by the trial
Court is justified.
33. The High Court dismissed the suit primarily on
two grounds, namely: -
(i) The failure of the plaintiff-appellant to
establish readiness and willingness to
perform his obligations under the contract
(Exh.A-1);
(ii) limitation.
34. On the first aspect, it may be noted that the
th
factum of three extensions dated 14 April, 2008
th
(executed by all nine co-sharers); 7 August, 2010
th
and 7 July, 2011(executed by the power of attorney
holder, Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal), stands duly
proved by the plaintiff-appellant through
unimpeachable and credible evidence. It was only on
th
14 November, 2012, that the defendant-respondent,
for the first time, caused publication of a newspaper
notice purporting to revoke the power of attorney
15
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
executed in favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal.
Furthermore, the defendant-respondent does not
even dispute the validity of the agreement (Exh. A1)
th
dated 14 May, 2007 which was executed by Shri
Muhammed Rafi Thangal acting on the unregistered
power of attorney (Exh. A4). In this backdrop, the
theory projected by the respondent that the power of
attorney executed by her in favour of Shri
Muhammed Rafi Thangal stood revoked as far back
as the year 2002 is ex facie untenable and contrary
to the record.
35. The most crucial and vital document, which, in
our considered view, tilts the balance in favour of the
plaintiff-appellant, is the affidavit (Exh. A5) executed
th
by the defendant on 30 April, 2013. The execution
of the said affidavit (Exh. A5) was neither disputed
nor denied by the defendant–respondent, who
admittedly did not enter the witness box in the suit
proceedings. Instead, her son Shri Rasheeq Ahmed
alone was examined as DW-1. A plain reading of the
affidavit, particularly the highlighted portions ( supra )
thereof, clearly establish that the defendant–
respondent not only ratified the acts performed by
the power of attorney holder, her brother Shri
16
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
Muhammed Rafi Thangal, but also expressly
conveyed her no-objection to the change in
management and so also the ownership of the school
and the properties appurtenant thereto in favour of
the plaintiff-appellant. Once the two facts, i.e., the
publication of notice in the year 2012 for revocation
of the unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4) and
th
the affidavit dated 30 April, 2013 are cumulatively
taken into account, manifestly, limitation would start
running from the later date because it is, at that
stage, that the respondent-defendant finally refused
execution of sale deed to the extent of her share in
the suit property.
36. In this backdrop, we are of the firm view that
the issue of limitation was erroneously decided by the
trial Court as well as the High Court, leading to an
unjustified rejection of the suit instituted by the
appellant.
37. As the execution of the affidavit (Exh. A5) is not
in dispute, the period of limitation would commence
th
from the said date, i.e., 30 April, 2013. We have no
hesitation in holding that the suit was instituted
within the prescribed period of limitation, reckoned
from the date of the affidavit. The said affidavit (Exh.
17
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
A5) not only ratifies the acts performed by the power
of attorney holder Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal but
also records the unequivocal no-objection of the
executant–defendant to transfer the ownership of the
property in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.
38. There is no dispute that pursuant to the last
extension, the plaintiff-appellant paid the remaining
sale consideration which was accepted by eight co-
sharers of the defendant-respondent and the partial
sale deed to that extent, stood executed in his favour
th
on 8 May, 2013. Thus, the issue of readiness and
willingness was also wrongly decided against the
plaintiff-appellant and in favour of the defendant-
respondent.
39. In this background, we are of the firm opinion
that the High Court committed grave error in the
facts as well as in law in dismissing the appeal suit
filed by the plaintiff-appellant and affirming the
judgment of the trial Court.
40. The impugned judgments do not stand to
scrutiny and are hereby set aside.
41. The plaintiff-appellant is held entitled to
th
conveyance of the 1/11 share of the defendant–
respondent in the plaint schedule property. The trial
18
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
Court shall determine the balance sale consideration
payable to the defendant-respondent, having regard
to the original consideration stipulated in the
principal agreement for sale (Exh. A1), and shall
apply simple interest at the rate of 9% thereon. The
appellant shall deposit the said amount before the
trial Court within a period of two months from the
date of such determination, whereupon a registered
sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property
shall be executed in favour of the appellant.
42. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs.
43. Decree be prepared accordingly.
44. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3895 OF 2022
45. This appeal is preferred against the interim
th
order dated 19 November, 2021 passed by the High
Court in Writ Appeal No.1425 of 2021.
46. The writ appeal was preferred by defendant-
respondent Sakeena Beevi through her power of
attorney holder Shri Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1),
th
assailing the order dated 11 October, 2021 passed
by the learned Single Judge. By the said order,
learned Single Judge upheld the decision of the
19
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
Director of Public Instruction (DPI) rejecting the
representation preferred by the writ petitioner
against the proposed assignment of the ownership
and management of Aleemul Islam Higher Secondary
School, Padoor to the plaintiff-appellant (respondent
No. 3 before the High Court). Accordingly, the writ
petition was dismissed and the order of the DPI was
affirmed.
47. The writ petitioner alleged that since she had
not agreed to sell her share from the joint family land
on which the school existed, the total land area of the
school fell below 3 acres mandatorily required to
operate a higher secondary school as per Rule 5A
Chapter 3 of the Kerala Education Rules, 2005. The
DPI, however, rejected the representation of the writ
petitioner. As stated above, the writ petition also
came to be rejected.
48. During the pendency of the writ appeal, the
District Education Officer (DEO), Chavakkad, by
th
order dated 15 November, 2021 recognised the
plaintiff-appellant as the Manager of the school w.e.f.
rd
3 September, 2019.
49. The Division Bench stayed the effective
operation of the order of learned Single Judge dated
20
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
th th
11 October, 2021 and also the order dated 15
November, 2021 passed by the DEO during pendency
of the writ appeal. Consequently, the management of
the school was directed to be vested with the DEO,
Chavakkad. While providing for this interim
arrangement, the Division Bench directed the DEO to
discharge the functions of the Manager on the joint
instructions of the writ petitioner and the plaintiff-
appellant.
50. Learned counsel representing the State of
Kerala vehemently and fervently contended that
looking to the disputes pending between the parties
th
pertaining to 1/11 share of the defendant (writ
appellant) in the suit schedule property, the High
Court, rightly passed the impugned order making an
interim arrangement for management of the school
so that the functioning thereof would not suffer. He
urged that as the DEO has been ordered to act under
the instructions of the writ petitioner as well as the
plaintiff-appellant herein, no prejudice would be
caused to any of the parties in continuing such
arrangement.
51. By way of judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.
3894 of 2022, we have granted the decree of specific
21
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022
performance in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. In
view of the above decision, manifestly, the plaintiff-
appellant would have available to him the full tract of
3 acres land for running the school as required under
the Kerala Education Rules, 2005.
52. Hence, there is no further requirement of
continuing the interim arrangement as directed by
the High Court by the impugned order.
th
53. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19
November, 2021 passed by the High Court is set
aside.
54. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs.
55. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 07, 2026.
22
C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022