Power Of Attorney Must Be Construed Strictly; Agent Cant Sell Without Express Authorisation
Case: Umadevi Nambiar Vs Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese
Coram: Justices Hemant Gupta and V.Ramasubramanian
Case No.: CA 2592 of 2022
Court Observation: “As a matter of plain and simple fact, Exhibit A1, deed of Power of Attorney did not contain a clause authorizing the agent to sell the property though it contained two express provisions, one for leasing out the property and another for executing necessary documents if a security had to be offered for any borrowal made by the agent. Therefore, by convoluted logic, punctuation marks cannot be made to convey a power of sale. Even the very decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, makes it clear that ordinarily a Power of Attorney is to be construed strictly by the Court. Neither Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law Lexicon nor Section 49 of the Registration Act can amplify or magnify the clauses contained in the deed of Power of Attorney. 18. As held by this Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust the document should expressly authorize the agent, (i) to execute a sale deed; (ii) to present it for registration; and (iii) to admit execution before the Registering Authority”
“The High Court failed to appreciate that the possession of an agent under a deed of Power of Attorney is also the possession of the Principal and that any unauthorized sale made by the agent will not tantamount to the Principal parting with possession.. It is not always necessary for a plaintiff in a suit for partition to seek the cancellation of the alienations. There are several reasons behind this principle. One is that the alienees as well as the cosharer are still entitled to sustain the alienation to the extent of the share of the cosharer. It may also be open to the alienee, in the final decree proceedings, to seek the allotment of the transferred property, to the share of the transferor, so that equities are worked out in a fair manner. Therefore, the High Court was wrong in putting against the appellant, her failure to challenge the alienations.”
It is a fundamental principle of the law of transfer of property that “no one can confer a better title than what he himself has” (Nemo dat quod non habet). The appellant’s sister did not have the power to sell the property to the vendors of the respondent. Therefore, the vendors of the respondent could not have derived any valid title to the property. If the vendors of the respondent themselves did not have any title, they had nothing to convey to the respondent, except perhaps the litigation.
Previous Posts
Family Courts Not To Remain a Neutral Umpire, Can Order Enquiry to Find Out Truth: Kerala High Court
GST – Provisional Attachment Power ‘Draconian’; Not Intended To Authorize Commissioners To Make Preemptive Strikes On Assessee’s Property Download Judgement
Keywords
Express Authorisation, Power Of Attorney
