Supreme Court Elaborates on the Admissibility of Evidence by Power of Attorney Holders in Easementary Right Disputes

In a recent judicial pronouncement, the Supreme Court of India delved into the nuanced realm of legal representation, particularly concerning the deposition of evidence by Power of Attorney holders in contentious matters. The case under consideration revolved around a dispute concerning the assertion of easementary rights by the appellants over a pathway traversing the property of the respondents. Central to the appellants' claim were the statements made by their designated Power of Attorney before the court.

The crux of the issue lay in the authority and competence of the Power of Attorney holder to depose on behalf of the appellants, especially considering the circumstances surrounding the transaction in question. The respondents vehemently objected to the admissibility of the Power of Attorney's testimony, contending that he lacked firsthand knowledge of the transaction and thus, could not be considered a credible witness.

In delivering its judgment, the Bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra expounded upon the legal principles governing the scope of evidence that a Power of Attorney holder may furnish. The Court reiterated that a Power of Attorney holder can only depose about facts within their personal knowledge and cannot be examined as a witness for matters beyond their understanding. Furthermore, the Court underscored that the functions delegated to a General Power of Attorney holder cannot be sub-delegated without explicit authorization.

Drawing upon pertinent precedents and legal tenets, including the landmark case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd., the Supreme Court elucidated that the veracity of evidence presented by a Power of Attorney holder hinges on their direct involvement in the transaction at hand. Thus, in the absence of concrete knowledge or firsthand experience, the testimony of the Power of Attorney holds no substantive value in adjudicating legal disputes.

Consequently, the Court upheld the rulings of the High Court and Trial Court, dismissing the appeal on the grounds of lacking merit. The decision serves as a clarion call for vigilance and adherence to established legal norms, ensuring the sanctity and reliability of evidence presented in judicial proceedings.

LinkedIn Link - https://www.linkedin.com/company/legal-soch-foundation/ 💼📚👩‍⚖️

Telegram Link - https://t.me/+1-pfOBHo2a84MWRl

WhatsApp Link - https://chat.whatsapp.com/IMfN12mwJhELhOQLLFOLTb