The Supreme Court explained in a recent judgment that a Power of Attorney holder can only depose about the facts within his personal knowledge and not about those facts which are not within his knowledge or are within the personal knowledge of the person who he represents
Observing that a power of attorney holder can depose about the fact within his knowledge and not about those facts which are not within his knowledge, the Supreme Court denied the easementary right over the “rasta” claimed by the person based on the statements made by the ‘power of attorney’ who doesn’t know the facts before making the statements.
“It is, therefore, settled in law that Power of Attorney holder can only depose about the facts within his personal knowledge and not about those facts which are not within his knowledge or are within the personal knowledge of the person who he represents or about the facts that may have transpired much before he entered the scene…He (power of attorney) was not having any authority to act as the Power of Attorney of the Gala’s at the time his statement was recorded. He was granted Power of Attorney subsequently as submitted and accepted by the parties. Therefore, his evidence is completely meaningless to establish that Gala’s have acquired or perfected any easementary right over the disputed rasta in 1994 when the suit was instituted.”, the Bench Comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra said.
The case relates to the claim of the easementary right by the appellants over the “rasta” which passes from the property owned by the respondents.
The appellant’s claim of easementary right over the respondent’s property was based on the statements made by the power of attorney before the court. However, the power of attorney made the statement while he was not authorized to make his statement as a power of attorney of the appellants.
Objecting to the appellant’s claim of easementary right, the respondents contended that the deposition made by the power of attorney had no value as the appellant’s power of attorney did not know about the transaction, and hence cannot be examined as a witness.
Rejecting the appellant’s contention, the Judgment authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal asserted that the ‘power of attorney’ can only depose such facts that are within its knowledge.
Noting that the fact of appellants having the easementary right over the respondent’s property was not within the knowledge of the appellant’s power of attorney and neither he was the power of attorney when the transaction took place, the court found the evidence given by power of attorney as meaningless.
To What Extent ‘Power Of Attorney’ Holder Can Give Evidence, Supreme Court Explains
The court opined that the power of attorney holder cannot give evidence of which he doesn’t have knowledge, and neither he can be examined as a witness to give such evidence before the court.
In Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd., the Supreme Court held that the Power of Attorney holder or the legal representative should have knowledge about the transaction in question to bring on record the truth in relation to the grievance or the offence.
“However, to resolve the controversy with regard to the powers of the General Power of Attorney holder to depose on behalf of the person he represents, this Court upon consideration of all previous relevant decisions in A.C Narayan vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court clarified that “Power of Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the court but he must have witnessed the transaction as an agent and must have due knowledge about it. The Power of Attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transaction cannot be examined as a witness. The functions of the General Power of Attorney holder cannot be delegated to any other person without there being a specific clause permitting such delegation in the Power of Attorney; meaning thereby ordinarily there cannot be any sub-delegation.”, the court observed.
Conclusion
We do not find any basis to record that the Gala’s have acquired easementary right over the disputed rasta in any manner much less by prescription, necessity or under an agreement.”, the court concluded while upholding the High Court’s and Trial court’s order.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.
Case Title: MANISHA MAHENDRA GALA vs. SHALINI BHAGWAN AVATRAMANI