Power of Attorney holder can only depose about facts which are within his/her personal knowledge

The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 10.04.2024 in the case of “Manisha Mahendra Gala & Ors. vs. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani & Ors., 2024 INSC 293” had the occasion to deal with whether power of attorney holders can depose about facts which are not within his/her personal knowledge but are privy to the persons they represent.

Factual Matrix:

The predecessor in interest of the Petitioner’s had filed a civil suit praying for easementary rights over a 20 feet wide road which was situated in the property of the Respondents. The Trial Court vide its order dated 06.02.2003 decreed the said suit in favour of the predecessor in interest of the Petitioners. However, upon an appeal being filed by the Respondents, the first Appellate Court vide its order dated 12.03.2009 set aside the order of the Trial Court and in effect dismissed the suit filed by the Petitioner.

Aggrieved by the decision, the Petitioners filed a second appeal before the High Court which vide its order dated 01.10.2009 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court.

Analysis:

The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 10.04.2024 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgments passed by the High Court and the First Appellate Court.

The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that neither the predecessor in interest of the Petitioners nor the Petitioners themselves entered into the witness box to depose and prove that they had an easementary right attached with the Dominant Heritage i.e. the 20 feet wide road situated in the property of the Respondent. Instead, the Petitioners have only relied upon the deposition and evidence of their Power of Attorney Holder who was the manager of the property.

The Hon’ble Apex Court while relying on the judgments passed in “Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217” and “A.C Narayan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 11 SCC 790” held 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 or about the facts that may have transpired much before he entered the scene. In the present case, the Power of Attorney holder of the Petitioners could not have deposed owing to the fact that he had entered the scene only in the year when the suit was filed by the Petitioners and hence, had no knowledge about whether the Petitioners were peacefully enjoying any rights in respect of the servient heritage i.e. the 20 feet wide road situated in the property of the Respondents without any interruption for over 20 years.

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Apex Court also observed that in the instant case, findings have been returned by the lower courts that there is an alternative way to access the Dominant Heritage. Hence, the plea of easementary right by necessity under Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 is demolished as well.