-
by sayum
01 April 2026 2:32 PM
“Once a party ratifies a power of attorney and expresses no objection to transfer, the same cannot be retracted to defeat contractual obligations” — In a compelling and sharply reasoned verdict delivered on 7th January 2026, the Supreme Courtenforced a contract for sale of immovable property against a co-sharer who had earlier ratified a power of attorney but later attempted to disown it. The Court held that an affidavit confirming a power of attorney and expressing willingness for property transfer binds the executant, and refusal to honour it later amounts to breach, not revocation.
“The execution of the said affidavit (Exh. A5) was neither disputed nor denied… A plain reading of the affidavit clearly establishes that the defendant not only ratified the acts performed by the power of attorney holder but also expressly conveyed her no-objection to the change in ownership,” said the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
The Court reversed concurrent findings of the Kerala High Court and the Trial Court, which had dismissed the appellant’s suit for specific performance on the grounds of limitation and alleged lack of readiness and willingness.
“Limitation Runs from Date of Final Refusal — Not Earlier Breach”: Court Recalculates Start of Limitation Period Based on Affidavit Date
Addressing the question of limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the Court firmly rejected the view that limitation began from the original date of breach or refusal. It held that the limitation clock began from 30th April 2013, when the respondent executed an affidavit affirming the authority of her brother and expressing willingness for the property transfer.
The Supreme Court declared:
“Manifestly, limitation would start running from the later date because it is, at that stage, that the respondent-defendant finally refused execution of sale deed.”
By treating the affidavit as the crucial date of final refusal, the Court concluded that the suit filed in 2013 was well within limitation.
Earlier, both the Trial Court and High Court had held that the breach occurred in 2008 and that the suit was time-barred. But the apex court found this “erroneously decided” and an “unjustified rejection” of a rightful claim.
“Failure to Enter Witness Box Undermines Defence”: Respondent’s Silence Strengthens Plaintiff’s Case
The Court took strong exception to the fact that the defendant–respondent never stepped into the witness box to challenge her affidavit, relying solely on the testimony of her son, who acted as her power of attorney.
“If the defendant had any intention to prove revocation of the power of attorney… she ought to have stepped into the witness box herself. Admittedly, the defendant did not enter the witness box,” observed the Court.
This omission, the Court held, undermines the credibility of her claim and leaves the affidavit (Exh. A5) undisputed. The solemn act of affirming willingness for the transfer in the affidavit stood unrebutted.
“Greed Cannot Override Legal and Educational Mandates”: Court Calls Out Malafide Refusal to Execute Sale Deed
Highlighting the equitable dimensions of the case, the Supreme Court drew attention to the functioning of a higher secondary school on the disputed property, which requires a minimum of 3 acres of land under Kerala Education Rules. The plaintiff had already acquired the shares of the other eight co-sharers, and only the respondent’s 1/11th share remained.
The Court remarked on the respondent’s refusal to accept a generous offer of ₹75 lakhs and noted:
“The defendant seems to have been overcome by greed owing to the difficulty faced by the plaintiff, who would risk losing the right to operate the school if the land area is reduced.”
It added, “The affidavit is a solemn declaration, not a mere piece of paper to be discarded at convenience.”
Thus, the Court ordered specific performance and directed that the balance consideration be calculated by the Trial Court with 9% simple interest, following which a registered sale deed must be executed.
“Once You Ratify, You Can’t Retreat”: Supreme Court Upholds Sanctity of Affidavit in Contract Law
The ruling sends a powerful signal on two crucial legal points — the evidentiary value of ratificatory affidavits and the recalibration of limitation in cases involving continued representations of consent.
The Supreme Court concluded:
“The High Court committed grave error in the facts as well as in law… The impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny and are hereby set aside.”
By enforcing the agreement despite the passage of years and attempted withdrawal by the defendant, the Court has reinforced that equity and clarity in conduct must govern specific performance claims, particularly when public interest and educational continuity are at stake.
Date of Decision: January 7, 2026
