IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 [@ SLP (C) NO. 11868 OF 2024]
REPORTABLE
THARAMMEL PEETHAMBARAN AND ANOTHER … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
T. USHAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
- Leave granted.
The present appeal arises from O.S No. 197 of 2013 before the Senior Civil Judge in Kozhikode, initiated by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. The 1st Respondent filed this suit seeking declaration, perpetual injunction, and damages. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the immovable property detailed in Plaint A-Schedule, is the sister of the 1st Defendant, who resides in Kozhikode, while the Plaintiff lives in Mumbai.
Notably, on 31.07.1998, the Plaintiff executed a Power of Attorney (PoA) in favor of the 1st Defendant, later referred to as Exhibit A-4 (by the Plaintiff) and Exhibit B-2 (notarized photocopy by the Defendants). The 1st Defendant executed registered sale deeds dated 15.03.2007 in favor of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, prompting the Plaintiff to cancel the PoA upon learning of these transactions.
The 1st Defendant claimed the Plaintiff acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 6,00,000/- as part of the sale consideration through a receipt dated 23.04.2007. The subsequent legal dispute led to the filing of O.S No. 597 of 2007, re-numbered as O.S No. 197 of 2013. The Trial Court heard both parties and ultimately dismissed the suit.
Key Issues Addressed in the Case:
- Power of Attorney Authenticity
The Plaintiff questioned the legitimacy of the PoA, asserting that it was manipulated after the fact, rendering the sales executed under it void. - Claims of Ownership
The fundamental dispute involved the Plaintiff’s assertion of ownership of the properties against the claims made by the 1st Defendant. - Reliability of Evidence
The Trial Court analyzed evidence from both sides, which included various exhibits and testimonies.
Findings of the Trial Court:
The Trial Court examined documentary evidence, including receipts and testimonies, and determined the following:
- The PoA was ultimately deemed invalid due to inconsistencies.
- Sale deeds executed by the 1st Defendant were ruled void.
- Injunctive relief was granted, mandating the 1st Defendant to vacate the properties.
Appeal to the High Court:
Following the dismissal of the suit, an appeal was filed with the First Appellate Court, which allowed the appeal and reversed the Trial Court’s findings based on various critical judgments regarding:
- Benami Transactions
The claim of independent ownership by the 1st Defendant was struck down under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. - Power of Attorney Evidence
The High Court stressed the importance of validating the PoA, which was essential for the Defendant’s claims.
Conclusion of the Civil Appeal:
In concluding the civil appeal, Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the invalidity of the PoA rendered all subsequent transactions void. This outcome reinforces the significance of proper legal documentation and adherence to the relevant laws governing property transactions in India. The appeal was dismissed, with no order for costs.
New Delhi; February 06, 2026.