The Supreme Court observed that the subsequent cancellation of the power of attorney will have no effect on the conveyances carried out under the valid power conferred

The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the order of the High Court reversing the rejection of a plaint on the ground of limitation.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran asserted, “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 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.”

Senior Advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff sought a declaration, that the various sale deeds entered into and executed on the strength of the power of attorney are null and void. Injunction was also sought to restrain Rule 11, that normally such an application would not require an elaborate examination of the documents produced, which has to be done at the time of trial, 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) alleging that the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial Court, mindful of the caution in considering an application under Order VII found that the clear facts coming out even from the averments indicated that the suit was barred by limitation.

The general power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in the name of the first respondent was October 15, 2004 and the sale deeds sought to be declared null and void were of the duration 2004-06 and 2009. The Trial Court found that the patta obtained on January 10, 2015 clearly indicated conveyance to various defendants and hence on January 10, 2015 itself, the plaintiff was in 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.

In appeal, the High Court found that the power of attorney stood cancelled only on September 22, 2015 and the limitation had 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. The defendant-appellant assailed this decision before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the respondent-plaintiff did not at all dispute the execution of the general power of attorney, which was 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 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”, the Bench said.

It further explained, “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.”

As per the Bench, the cancellation of the power of attorney by a subsequent document would not confer upon the person who executed the same any cause of action to challenge the valid exercise of the power when it existed. The Bench further held that the High Court had erroneously treated the cancellation as the point of commencement of limitation.

Setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, the Bench affirmed the rejection of the plaint as ordered by the Trial Court and allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: V. Ravikumar v. S. Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 343)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan, Advocates Karuppaiah Meyyappan, AOR Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Advocates Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Madhav Gupta

Respondent: Senior Advocates Raghenth Basant, G Umapathy, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocates Jahnavi Taneja, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Danish Saifi, AOR Aditya Singh-1, Advocates Tushar Nair, Sujeet Kumar

Click here to read/download Order




Justice Sudhanshu DhuliaJustice K. Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.