Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

Principal's Independent Actions Revoke Power of Attorney: Supreme Court

06 September 2024 1:58 PM

By: sayum


The Supreme Court sets aside the sale deed executed by an agent, affirming the implied revocation doctrine when the principal acts independently. The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has set aside a sale deed executed by an agent under a power of attorney, emphasizing the doctrine of implied revocation. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and S.V.N. Bhatti, reaffirms the legal principle that a principal's act of independently dealing with property constitutes an implied revocation of the agent’s authority.

The appellant, Thankamma George, and the first respondent, Lilly Thomas, are sisters and daughters of the late George. The dispute centers around the sale of a property originally co-purchased by the sisters. Thankamma, having worked abroad for many years, had executed a power of attorney in favor of Lilly to manage the property. However, Thankamma later co-executed a sale deed for part of the property, which led to a legal battle over the remaining portion sold by Lilly to her husband, the second respondent.

The Supreme Court delved into the principle of implied revocation under Sections 207 and 208 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court observed that the appellant's act of co-executing the sale deed dated January 18, 2008, amounted to an implied revocation of the power of attorney granted to Lilly. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti noted, “The co-execution of the sale deed by the principal independently is inconsistent with the continuation of the agency, thereby constituting implied revocation.”

The Court scrutinized the sale deed executed by Lilly in favor of her husband on April 16, 2008, under the revoked power of attorney. The Court highlighted the absence of consideration for the sale, which Lilly admitted during cross-examination. The judgment stated, “The execution of the sale deed without consideration is void ab initio and does not create any valid right or title in favor of the second respondent.”

The Court emphasized that the relationship between a principal and an agent is rooted in trust and authority, which can be revoked by the principal’s explicit or implied actions. The judgment cited previous rulings to underline that a principal's right to revoke a power of attorney can be exercised implicitly through actions that indicate a clear intent to terminate the agent’s authority.

Justice Bhatti remarked, “The execution of the sale deed by the principal herself, independent of the agent, unequivocally implies revocation of the power of attorney. This principle is well established in law and is vital to protecting the interests of principals who choose to act independently.”

The Supreme Court's decision to set aside the sale deed underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of agency law and protecting the rights of principals. This landmark ruling clarifies the legal stance on implied revocation of power of attorney and is expected to have significant implications for future cases involving similar disputes.

Date of Decision: July 9, 2024

Thankamma George vs. Lilly Thomas and Another

Latest Legal News