A power of attorney executed by multiple principals survives one principal’s death until revoked.

The appellants, the widow and son of late Chandran, instituted O.S.No.70 of 2011 seeking declarations that two sale deeds dated 29.07.2005 and 09.04.2010, executed by the first defendant as their power agent in favour of his wife, the second defendant, were sham, nominal and void, and seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit properties.

The properties originally belonged to Karuppanan and were claimed to be ancestral properties descending through his son Alagan to Chandran, Murugesan and Thavamani.

The first plaintiff and Murugesan had executed a registered power of attorney dated 31.07.1999 in favour of the first defendant with power to alienate the properties.

The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the suit was barred by limitation, the Will was not proved, the suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties, and the second defendant had title under the sale deeds.

1. Whether the sale deeds dated 29.07.2005 and 09.04.2010, executed by the first defendant under the power of attorney, were legally valid

2. Whether the suit challenging the sale deeds was barred by limitation

3. Whether the plaintiffs established their title over the suit properties

4. Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of Murugesan’s wife and brother as necessary parties

5. Whether the trial Court’s judgment and decree dismissing the suit required interference in appeal

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It applied the principle that a party seeking a declaration of title bears the burden of proving an independent and valid title, relying on Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan v. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale, (2007) 6 SCC 737, and T.K. Mohammed Abubucker v. P.S.M.Ahamed Abdul Khader, AIR 2009 SC 2966.

It held that where multiple principals execute a power of attorney, the death of one principal does not automatically terminate the authority as against the surviving principal, relying on K.A. Meeran Mohideen v. Sheik Amjed, MANU/TN/5483/2024, and the principle adopted in S.A.Nos.238 and 239 of 2023.

The Court further applied the Hindu joint-family principle that a Karta or family manager may alienate joint-family property for legal necessity or the benefit of the estate; an alienation not supported by necessity is ordinarily voidable, rather than void, relying on Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar, 1996 (8) SCC 54, and Mariammal v. Subbuthai, 2013 (5) CTC 49.

It also applied the rule that evidence cannot ordinarily be introduced without foundational pleadings, relying on Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai v. Kumar Vamanrao, AIR 2024 SC 1310.

The Court additionally relied on the principle that an alienee of an undivided joint-family share may claim allotment of the vendor’s share at partition, as stated in Adivi Naidu v. E. Duruvasulu Naidu, 1995 (6) SCC 150.

The Court held that the power of attorney expressly conferred authority to alienate the properties and that both sale deeds were executed before its formal cancellation on 25.10.2010.

Murugesan’s death did not, by itself, invalidate the authority because the power had been executed by more than one principal and the first plaintiff remained alive.

The plaintiffs failed to plead and prove that the first defendant had acted beyond the authority granted, failed to account for the sale proceeds, or committed coercion, fraud or breach of trust.

The limitation objection was accepted in relation to the 29.07.2005 sale deed.

The plaintiffs did not satisfactorily establish that they first acquired knowledge of the sale deed only upon obtaining the certified copy in April 2011.

The plaintiffs also failed to establish title.

The alleged Will in favour of the second plaintiff was unregistered, the propounder and scribe were not examined, the testator’s wife was not shown to have been legally divorced, and the evidence regarding Murugesan’s serious heart ailment created suspicious circumstances that remained unexplained.

Since the Will was not proved, Murugesan was treated as having died intestate.

It held that the sale deeds dated 29.07.2005 and 09.04.2010 were valid and that the second defendant acquired title to Items 1 and 2 under those deeds.

The suit was held barred by limitation, the plaintiffs failed to prove their title or the alleged Will, and the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

The appeal was therefore dismissed, the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2020 in O.S.No.70 of 2011 were confirmed, and there was no order as to costs.