DEB RATAN BISWAS AND ORS. versus MOST. ANAND MOYI DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 7 S.C.R. 303 · Decided: 15-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 7 S.C.R. 303 
DEB RATAN BISWAS AND ORS. 
v. 
MOST. ANAND MOYI DEVI AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2728 of 2006) 
APRIL 15, 2011 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.151 - Appellants filed 
partition suit against the respondents - Respondents had 
executed General Power of Attorney in favour of two persons 
C 
(to manage and collect rent of the immovable property but not 
confeffing any right regarding title to the property) which was 
registered - Parties to the suit entered into compromise -
Trial Court passed decree in terms of the compromise -
Subsequently, Respondents filed miscellaneous petition 
D 
through one of the attorneys ('SJ, for recalling the decree on 
the allegation that the signatures on the compromise were 
forged - Petition dismissed by trial court- Respondents filed 
revision before High Court which was allowed - On appeal, 
held: The finding of fact recorded by the trial court that there 
E 
was no forgery was based on material on record and could 
not have been validly interfered with in Civil Revision by the 
High Court - The trial court rightly held that 'S' was only an 
attorney and could not claim any independent capacity in the 
proceedings ""'.' The principal (Respondents) signed the 
F 
compromise for partition of the property, which in law amounts 
to implied revocation of power of attorney in favour of 'S' -
Respondents cannot' be allowed to say that their own act of 
signing the compromise petition was collusive and fraudulent 
- The High Court observed that Respondents should have 
G 
consulted the power of attorney 'S' before signing the 
compromise petition - This is a strange kind of reasoning -
The principal is not bound to consult his attorney before 
signing a compromise petition - The High Court also held 
that if 'S' was not willing to sign the compromise petition his 
303 
H 
304 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 
A unwillingness should have been mentioned in the 
compromise petition - This also is a strange reasoning - The 
impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the 
order of the trial court is restored - Contract Act, 1872 - s. 207, 
Illustration. 
B 
Deeds and Documents - Power of Attorney - Execution 
of- Effect - Held: Even after execution of a power of attorney 
the principal can act independently and does not have to take 
the consent of the attorney - The attorney is only an agent of 
C the principal. 
The appellants filed title suit against the respondents 
for partition of certain properties. While the partition suit 
was pending, the defendants-respondents 'P' and 'A' 
executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of 'U' and 
D 'S' which was registered. The parties to the suit, including 
'P' and 'A' filed a compromise petition which was 
approved by the trial court and a decree was directed to 
be passed in terms of the compromise. 
E 
Subsequently, a miscellaneous petition purporting to 
be on behalf of 'P' and 'A' was filed through the attorney 
'S' under Section 151 CPC praying for recalling the said 
decree on the allegation that the signatures on the 
compromise were forged. The trial court held that 
Miscellaneous Petition filed at the instance of only one 
F of the attorneys was not maintainable, as according to the 
terms of the power of attorney both the constituted 
attorneys were entrusted to act jointly. Hence, the 
miscellaneous petition filed by 'S' was dismissed. Against 
that order, the respondents filed a Civil Revision which 
G was allowed by the High Court, and hence the instant 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD:1. The finding of fact recorded by the trial 
DEB RATAN BISWAS AND ORS. v. MOST. ANAND 
305 
MOYI Dli::VI AND ORS. 
court after detailed discussion of the evidence was that A 
there was no forgery. This finding is based on material 
on record and it is a finding of fact. Hence it could not 
have been validly interfered with in Civil Revision by the 
High Court. [Para 8) [307-G-H; 308-A] 
2. The trial court rightly held that 'S.' was only an 
B 
attorney and he cannot claim any independent capacity 
in the proceedings. The principal 'P' and 'A' signed the 
compromise for partition of the property, which in law 
amounts to implied revocation of power of attorney in 
favour of 'S' vide Illustration to Section 207 of the Indian 
C 
Contract Act. 'P' and 'A' cannot be allowed to say that 
their own act of signing the compromise petition was 
collusive a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.