Tharammel Peethambaran & Anr. v. T. Ushakrishnan & Anr.
Background
The respondent (plaintiff), who owned certain properties in Kozhikode, Kerala but lived in Mumbai, had given her brother (the 1st defendant/appellant) a power of attorney (PoA) in 1998 to manage the properties. The brother later executed registered sale deeds in 2007 transferring the properties to two other relatives (the 2nd and 3rd defendants), claiming the PoA authorised him to sell. The sister sued, alleging the PoA she signed only granted limited management powers and that the "sale" clauses in the version her brother used (a notarised photocopy, not the original) had been fraudulently added later, pointing to mismatched letter-spacing between the added words and the rest of the document as proof of tampering. The Trial Court and, ultimately, the High Court (in a second appeal) ruled in her favour, while the first-level appellate court had sided with the brother; the brother and his co-defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the disputed PoA (Exh. B-2) was only a notarised photocopy, not the original, and that a party relying on such a copy as "secondary evidence" must first legally establish the right to rely on it (e.g., by proving the original was lost or explaining its absence) before its contents can even be considered: a two-step, conjunctive requirement that was never satisfied here. The Court held that merely marking a document as an exhibit does not prove its contents, and that courts should not compare disputed signatures themselves without an expert's assistance, criticising the First Appellate Court for having done exactly that. Since the foundational requirements for secondary evidence were not met, the photocopy PoA was legally "no evidence" at all, meaning the presumptions under Section 33 of the Registration Act and Section 85 of the Evidence Act (which apply to duly proved documents) could not be invoked in the brother's favour. The Court agreed with the High Court that the First Appellate Court had wrongly relied on this inadmissible photocopy, and upheld the finding that the 2007 sale deeds were void for want of valid authority.
Lesson Learnt
A photocopy of an important legal document like a power of attorney cannot simply be treated as valid evidence: the party relying on it must first prove, through proper legal procedure, why the original is unavailable and that the copy is genuine, before courts will act on its contents; skipping this step can invalidate transactions built on that document, however old or seemingly settled.