Supreme Court Limits Power of Attorney Testimony to Personal Knowledge

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court elucidated that a Power of Attorney holder can solely depose regarding the facts within their personal knowledge, refraining from statements beyond their purview or pertaining to facts known solely to the represented individual.

The apex court, while denying an easementary right over the "rasta" claimed by an individual, emphasized the limitation of a Power of Attorney holder's testimony to facts within their knowledge. The denial was based on the statements made by the Power of Attorney, whose awareness of the pertinent facts was questioned.

"It is, therefore, settled in law that a Power of Attorney holder can only depose about the facts within their personal knowledge and not about those facts which are not within their knowledge or are within the personal knowledge of the person whom they represent or about the facts that may have transpired much before they entered the scene... He (Power of Attorney) was not having any authority to act as the Power of Attorney of the Galas at the time his statement was recorded. He was granted Power of Attorney subsequently as submitted and accepted by the parties. Therefore, his evidence is completely meaningless to establish that the Galas have acquired or perfected any easementary right over the disputed rasta in 1994 when the suit was instituted," remarked the Bench Comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra.

The case under scrutiny pertains to the appellants' claim of an easementary right over the respondent's property, hinging on statements made by the Power of Attorney before the court. However, the validity of such statements was contested, given that the Power of Attorney made them without proper authorization.

Challenging the appellant's assertion, the respondents argued that the deposition made by the Power of Attorney lacked credibility as he did not possess knowledge of the transaction, rendering him ineligible to testify as a witness.

Dismissing the appellant's contention, the judgment, authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal, underscored that a Power of Attorney can only depose regarding facts within their knowledge. Given that the Power of Attorney was unaware of the appellants' purported easementary right over the respondent's property and was not representing them during the relevant transaction, the court deemed his testimony irrelevant.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis of the powers of a General Power of Attorney holder to provide testimony on behalf of the represented individual, referred to previous relevant decisions. Citing the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd., the Court affirmed that a Power of Attorney holder must possess knowledge of the transaction in question to present truthful information before the court.

"However, to resolve the controversy with regard to the powers of the General Power of Attorney holder to depose on behalf of the person he represents, this Court upon consideration of all previous relevant decisions in A.C Narayan vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court clarified that 'Power of Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the court, but he must have witnessed the transaction as an agent and must have due knowledge about it. The Power of Attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transaction cannot be examined as a witness. The functions of the General Power of Attorney holder cannot be delegated to any other person without there being a specific clause permitting such delegation in the Power of Attorney; meaning thereby ordinarily there cannot be any sub-delegation,'" observed the court.

In conclusion, the court found no grounds to assert that the Galas had acquired an easementary right over the disputed rasta, thus affirming the decisions of the High Court and Trial court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.