Apex Court Clarifies Evidentiary Competence In Property Transactions
The Supreme Court of India has held that a Power of Attorney holder who is also the vendee and an attesting witness to an agreement to sell is competent to depose regarding the transaction. The Court clarified that such testimony is admissible when the witness possesses personal and direct knowledge of the execution and terms of the agreement.
Through this ruling, the Court settled a recurring controversy in property litigation. At the same time, it reaffirmed practical principles governing evidence, agency, and contractual dealings.
Background Of The Case
The dispute arose from a suit seeking enforcement of an agreement to sell immovable property. During the trial, the plaintiff led evidence through a Power of Attorney holder.
Importantly, the attorney was not only authorised to act on behalf of the principal. He was also the vendee under the agreement and an attesting witness at the time of execution.
However, the opposing party objected to the admissibility of such evidence. It argued that a Power of Attorney holder cannot depose on matters requiring the personal knowledge of the principal.
Supreme Court’s Legal Determination
Rejecting the objection, the Supreme Court held that:
- A Power of Attorney holder can depose on facts within his personal knowledge.
- When the attorney is also the vendee and an attesting witness, he has direct and independent knowledge of the transaction.
- Such testimony does not amount to hearsay and is legally admissible.
The Court clarified that restrictions on testimony by Power of Attorney holders apply only when the attorney seeks to depose on matters exclusively within the personal knowledge of the principal. They do not apply where the attorney himself participated in the transaction.
Distinction Between Agency And Personal Knowledge
The Bench drew a clear distinction between:
- Deposition based solely on authority as an agent, and
- Testimony based on first-hand participation and witnessing of the transaction.
The Court observed that when an attorney personally participates in the execution of a document, his evidence flows from direct perception, not delegated authority.
Evidentiary Value Of Attesting Witness
The Supreme Court further held that an attesting witness to an agreement to sell is a material witness to its execution. Where such a witness also acts as the Power of Attorney holder, his dual role does not dilute the credibility or admissibility of his testimony.
Moreover, the Court emphasised that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive justice in property disputes.
Implications For Property And Contract Litigation
The judgment carries significant implications, as it:
- Clarifies evidentiary rules in suits for specific performance
- Prevents hyper-technical objections aimed at delaying trials
- Recognises commercial realities of property transactions
