SYED ABDUL KHADER versus RAMI REDDY & ORS.

SYED ABDUL KHADER versus RAMI REDDY & ORS.

Three principals can jointly constitute an agent by a power of attorney under Indian law; surrounding circumstances may be considered to ascertain intention. Power of attorney in question conferred wide powers, including sale of land; ingredients of benami are absent; plaintiff was the absolute owner; court's discretion in admitting additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC upheld.

Parties
Appellant: Syed Abdul Khader; Respondent: Rami Reddy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 November 1978
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Andhra Pradesh High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Power of Attorney, Benami Transactions, Ostensible Ownership, Joint Principals, Additional Evidence in Appellate Court
Property Law Agency Law Civil Procedure Power of Attorney Benami Transactions Ostensible Ownership Joint Principals Additional Evidence in Appellate Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Syed Abdul Khader

Appellant

Rami Reddy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Andhra Pradesh High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether three principals can jointly constitute an agent by a 'power of attorney'.
  2. 2 Whether surrounding circumstances can be considered to ascertain intention of the parties to a power of attorney.
  3. 3 Whether a general power of attorney requires registration for validity.

Ratio Decidendi

Three principals can jointly constitute an agent by a power of attorney under Indian law; surrounding circumstances may be considered to ascertain intention. Power of attorney in question conferred wide powers, including sale of land; ingredients of benami are absent; plaintiff was the absolute owner; court's discretion in admitting additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal fails and is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to respondents.