Validity of Power of Attorney Under Section 33: Supreme Court's Ruling

Introduction

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed the validity of a power of attorney (PoA) in the case of Tharammel Peethambaran and Another vs. T. Ushakrishnan and Another. The judgment, delivered on February 6, 2026, clarified the legal principles surrounding the execution and authority conferred by a PoA, particularly under Section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908. This case highlights the critical importance of adhering to legal formalities in property transactions and the implications of failing to do so.

Case Background

The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by the plaintiff, Tharammel Peethambaran, against the defendants, T. Ushakrishnan and another, concerning the ownership and sale of immovable property. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the property based on a power of attorney executed in her favor, while the defendants contended that they had validly acquired the property through a PoA executed by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff alleged that the PoA relied upon by the defendants was a sham document, asserting that it had been improperly executed and did not confer the authority to sell the property. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the sale deeds executed by the defendants as invalid. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision, leading to further appeals.

What The Lower Authorities Held

The trial court found that the PoA presented by the defendants was not duly executed and lacked the necessary authentication under the Registration Act. It ruled that the sale deeds executed by the defendants were invalid and granted the plaintiff relief in the form of a permanent injunction against the defendants.

In contrast, the first appellate court held that the plaintiff had not sufficiently proven her claims regarding the invalidity of the PoA. It concluded that the defendants had established their authority to sell the property based on the PoA, which was notarized and presented as secondary evidence.

The High Court later restored the trial court's findings, emphasizing the need for proper authentication of the PoA and the discrepancies in the evidence presented by the defendants.

The Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court, while examining the case, focused on the core issue of whether the PoA executed by the plaintiff was valid and whether it conferred the necessary authority to the defendants to sell the property. The court reiterated the legal principles governing the execution of a PoA, particularly under Section 33 of the Registration Act, which mandates that a PoA used for executing sale deeds must be properly authenticated.

The court noted that the defendants had failed to produce the original PoA, which was crucial for establishing the validity of their claims. The reliance on a notarized photocopy of the PoA was deemed insufficient, as the defendants did not follow the proper procedures for introducing secondary evidence. The court emphasized that secondary evidence is only admissible when the original document is unavailable and that the party seeking to introduce secondary evidence must lay a factual foundation for its admissibility.

The Supreme Court further highlighted that the discrepancies in the PoA, particularly the lack of cohesion in the clauses and the differences in spacing between the letters, indicated that the document had been tampered with. This raised serious doubts about the authenticity of the PoA and the authority it purported to confer.

Statutory Interpretation

The court's interpretation of Section 33 of the Registration Act was pivotal in its ruling. Section 33 requires that a PoA executed for the purpose of transferring property must be registered and duly authenticated. The court found that the PoA presented by the defendants did not meet these requirements, rendering the sale deeds executed under its authority invalid.

The court also examined the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act concerning the admissibility of secondary evidence. It reiterated that secondary evidence is only permissible when the original document is unavailable, and the party seeking to introduce it must provide a valid explanation for its non-production. The court emphasized that the defendants had not satisfied these conditions, leading to the conclusion that the PoA could not be relied upon to confer authority for the sale of the property.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is significant for legal practitioners as it reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory requirements when executing powers of attorney and conducting property transactions. It serves as a reminder that the validity of a PoA must be established through proper evidence, and any discrepancies or irregularities in the document can lead to severe legal consequences.

The ruling also clarifies the standards for introducing secondary evidence in court, emphasizing the need for a factual foundation and adherence to legal procedures. This decision will likely influence future cases involving powers of attorney and property transactions, highlighting the necessity for meticulous documentation and compliance with legal formalities.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants, affirming the High Court's decision to restore the trial court's findings. The court ruled that the sale deeds executed by the defendants were invalid due to the lack of a valid power of attorney, thereby upholding the plaintiff's rights over the property.

Case Details

• Case Title: Tharammel Peethambaran and Another vs. T. Ushakrishnan and Another
• Citation: 2026 INSC 134
• Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
• Bench: Pankaj Mithal, S.V.N. Bhatti
• Date of Judgment: 2026-02-06