Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover 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

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