V. Ravikumar vs S. Kumar

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________ OF 2025

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETETION (CIVIL) NO. 9472 OF 2023)

V. RAVIKUMAR …Appellant -Versus- S. KUMAR …Respondent

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The rejection of a plaint on the ground of

limitation was reversed by the High Court. The

defendant in the suit is the appellant herein who

assails the decision of the learned Single Judge

reckoning limitation from the cancellation of a power Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by of attorney; which power of attorney itself was babita pandey Date: 2025.03.07 18:45:37 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 8

executed long back, pursuant to which sale deeds

were also executed.

3. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for

declaration and injunction; declaration, that the

various sale deeds entered into and executed on the

strength of the power of attorney are null and void

and injunction, to restrain the defendant

permanently from interfering with the peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

The first defendant, the power holder filed an

application under Order VII Rule 11 read with

Sections 10, 11 and 150 of the C.P.C. (Civil

Procedure Code) clearly alleging that the suit was

barred by limitation. The Trial Court mindful of the

caution in considering an application under Order

VII Rule 11, that normally such an application

would not require an elaborate examination of the

Page 2 of 8 documents produced; which has to be done at the

time of trial, all the same found that the clear facts

coming out even from the averments would indicate

that the suit is barred by limitation.

4. The general power of attorney executed by

the plaintiff in the name of the first respondent was

dated 15.10.2004 and the sale deeds sought to be

declared null and void are of the years 2004-06 and

2009. The plaintiff’s contention itself was that he

was made aware of the sale deeds only on

21.09.2015; within three years of which the suit

was filed on 20.09.2018. The Trial Court found that

attached to the general power of attorney; filed as

the 26th document, along with the plaint, was a

patta obtained on 10.01.2015 which clearly

indicated conveyance to the various defendants and

hence as on 10.01.2015 itself, the plaintiff was in

Page 3 of 8 the know of the transactions made on the strength

of the power of attorney. It was found that the suit

was clearly barred by limitation, even from the date

of knowledge and the plaint was rejected.

5. In appeal, the High Court found that the

power of attorney stood cancelled only on

22.09.2015 and the limitation has to commence

from the date of such cancellation. The High Court

directed the suit to be restored to the files of the

Trial Court for proceeding on merits in accordance

with law.

6. Learned Counsel, Ms. Haripriya

Padmanabhan, appearing for the appellant herein

contended that limitation cannot commence from

the date of cancellation of the power of attorney.

Admittedly there was a power of attorney executed

Page 4 of 8 on the strength of which the appellant had effected

conveyances which cannot be unsettled after more

than a decade.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

respondent-plaintiff would on the other hand submit

that the transactions were collusive, insofar as the

power holder had transferred the properties to his

own wife and having got back the conveyance in his

name, clearly a fraud was played on the plaintiff and

the judgment of the High Court has to be upheld.

8. As is clear from the records, the

respondent-plaintiff does not at all dispute the

execution of the general power of attorney, which

was also executed as far back as in the year 2004.

There were conveyances made by the power holder

clearly on the strength of the power conferred on

Page 5 of 8 him. The attempt of the plaintiff is to unsettle

settled matters especially on the plea that the power

of attorney granted in the year 2004 was cancelled

in the year 2015. We are clear in our minds that the

cancellation does not affect the prior conveyances

made which are clearly on the strength of the power

conferred on the appellant. There is no contention

raised as to the power of attorney having not

conferred the power to enter into conveyances or

that such power of attorney was executed by reason

of a fraud or coercion employed on the executant.

The power holder having exercised the authority

conferred; to convey the properties in the name of

the purchasers, the cancellation of the power of

attorney will have no effect on the conveyances

carried out under the valid power conferred. Nor

would it confer the person who executed the power

Page 6 of 8 of attorney any cause of action, by virtue of a

cancellation of the power conferred by a subsequent

document, to challenge the valid exercise of the

power when it existed.

9. We are definitely of the opinion that the

High Court had erroneously treated the cancellation

as the point of commencement of limitation. We do

not place any reliance on the knowledge attributed

to the plaintiff as on 10.01.2015 by the Trial Court

in its order; which is argued by the respondent to be

without any basis. The power of attorney has been

executed in 2004 and the conveyances having been

made in the years between 2004-09, there cannot be

any cause of action ferreted out on the basis of the

cancellation of the power of attorney, after more

than 11 years. We set aside the impugned order of

Page 7 of 8 the High Court and affirm the rejection of the plaint

as ordered by the Trial Court.

10. The appeal stands allowed.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

……………………..……………, J.

[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

……………………..……………, J.

[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 03, 2025.

Page 8 of 8