Photocopy Is Not Proof – PoA Must Be Proven Before Property Can Be Sold: Supreme Court Holds Sale Deeds Void for Want of Valid Power of Attorney

“No Power, No Title, No Sale” – In a landmark ruling Supreme Court of India upheld the invalidity of sale deeds executed by a purported agent who relied only on a notarised photocopy of a Power of Attorney (PoA). The Court declared that a photocopy—no matter how notarised—is not proof of authority to sell someone else’s land, unless strict procedures for secondary evidence are followed.

“A photocopy is no evidence unless proved as per law,” the Court said, dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants who claimed to have sold the plaintiff’s property under a PoA that was never produced in original.

Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti delivered the judgment in Tharammel Peethambaran and Another v. T. Ushakrishnan and Another, putting to rest a long-drawn dispute over whether a man can claim to sell immovable property on the strength of an unproven, possibly interpolated, and never-registered PoA.

“Sale Clauses Inserted With Different Font, No Witness Signatures – Fabrication Found in Photocopy of PoA”

The case began in Kozhikode, Kerala, where the plaintiff, a woman residing in Mumbai, sued her brother (1st defendant) and his associates for selling her property without authority. While the defendant claimed he held a PoA empowering him to sell, he failed to produce the original. Instead, he relied on a notarised photocopy (Exh. B-2).

The Trial Court, after comparing the alleged PoA (Exh. B-2) with the draft sent earlier (Exh. A-3), found that clauses authorising “sale” had been inserted later. The added words lacked cohesion, used different spacing (monospace vs. proportional fonts), and were clearly not part of the original text.

“The visual differences in the document are not minor; they are tell-tale signs of tampering,” the Court noted, agreeing with both the Trial and High Courts.

“Authority to Sell Must Be Clearly Proven – Burden Lies on Agent”

The Supreme Court emphasised that the burden of proving the existence and scope of authority lies squarely on the agent, not the principal.

“Without valid proof of the PoA’s contents and execution, no title passes under the sale,” the Court held, adding that the defendant had failed to discharge this burden.

Though the defendants claimed the plaintiff had received ₹11,00,000 as consideration and signed receipts (Exh. B-6 and B-7), the Supreme Court rejected this as justification. Even if the receipts were genuine, the Court ruled:

“Acceptance of money does not validate a sale made without authority.”

“Section 85 of Evidence Act and Section 33 of Registration Act Cannot Be Invoked Without Proving the Document”

Attempting to salvage the transaction, the defendants invoked Section 85 of the Evidence Act, which provides a presumption of valid execution for registered PoAs, and Section 33 of the Registration Act, which governs authentication.

But the Court gave this argument short shrift.

“These presumptions arise only when the document is proven. A notarised photocopy—without following secondary evidence rules—is legally worthless,” the judgment declared.

The Court stated in no uncertain terms that none of the procedural steps under Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act had been followed. No explanation was given for non-production of the original, and the photocopy had no attestation or notary seal—raising further doubts.

“High Court Did Not Re-Appreciate Evidence – It Corrected Perversity”

The appellants also challenged the High Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that it had exceeded its authority under Section 100 of the CPC by reappreciating facts without framing substantial questions of law.

The Supreme Court dismissed this line of attack.

“The High Court acted within jurisdiction—it did not reweigh evidence but corrected findings based on inadmissible and fabricated documents,” the Bench clarified.

Quoting established principles, the Court reaffirmed:

“Where lower courts rely on no evidence, or on misread evidence, or documents that are legally inadmissible, interference under Section 100 CPC is not only justified—it is necessary.”

“Photocopy Alone Is No Proof” – The Law on Secondary Evidence Reaffirmed

In a powerful summary of evidentiary law, the Court reiterated that secondary evidence (like a photocopy) is admissible only in limited circumstances under Section 65 of the Evidence Act—and even then, only after laying a proper foundation.

“Before a photocopy can be considered, the party must prove the original existed, was duly executed, and cannot be produced for legitimate reasons,” the Court explained.

“Even if secondary evidence is admitted, its contents must still be proven. Not every exhibit proves itself.”

In this case, the original PoA was never produced, no plausible explanation was offered, and no expert or notary confirmed its contents or authenticity.

“Possession of Title Deeds Doesn’t Mean Power to Sell”

The defendants had also argued that they were in possession of original title deeds, implying the plaintiff had entrusted them for the purpose of sale.

The Court flatly rejected this:

“Mere possession of documents does not imply agency to sell. Authority must be proven by valid legal instrument—not inferred.”

Sale Deeds Declared Void, Appeal Dismissed

Finding no merit in the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, which had restored the Trial Court’s decree in favour of the plaintiff. The sale deeds were declared invalid, the agent’s claim of authority was rejected, and the property was ordered to be restored to the rightful owner.

“Exh. B-2 is not evidence in the eyes of law. The sale, based on it, is void ab initio,” the judgment concluded.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Date of Decision: 6th February 2026