THARAMMEL PEETHAMBARAN AND ANOTHER versus T. USHAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER

THARAMMEL PEETHAMBARAN AND ANOTHER versus T. USHAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER

Exh.B-2 is a notarised photocopy (a mechanical/secondary copy) and the appellants failed to lay the necessary factual foundation or follow the statutory procedure for adducing secondary evidence under the Evidence Act; therefore Exh.B-2 is inadmissible to prove the execution/contents of the PoA or the extent of authority to alienate. The First Appellate Court erred in relying on Exh.B-2; the High Court correctly set aside that reliance and restored the Trial Court's finding that the sale deeds were invalid. The High Court's interference under Section 100/103 CPC was justified as it corrected a misreading and reliance on inadmissible evidence, raising a substantial question of law.

Parties
Appellant: Tharammel Peethambaran and Another; Respondent: T. Ushakrishnan and Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal (appeal From High Court Under Section 100/103 Cpc)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Secondary Evidence, Power of Attorney, Photocopy as Mechanical Copy, Section 85 Evidence Act, Section 33 Registration Act, Section 100 CPC, Section 103 CPC, Admissibility of Documents, Perversity of Findings
Civil Procedure Evidence Registration Law Secondary Evidence Power of Attorney Photocopy as Mechanical Copy Section 85 Evidence Act Section 33 Registration Act +4 more

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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tharammel Peethambaran and Another

Appellant

T. Ushakrishnan and Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal (appeal From High Court Under Section 100/103 Cpc)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Exh.B-2 (notarised photocopy of PoA) is admissible as secondary evidence and, if so, whether it proves power to alienate the Plaint A-Schedule property
  2. 2 Whether the PoA/Exh.B-2 was fudged/interpolated with additions authorising sale
  3. 3 Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by reappreciating evidence or whether interference was justified on substantial question of law/perversity

Ratio Decidendi

Exh.B-2 is a notarised photocopy (a mechanical/secondary copy) and the appellants failed to lay the necessary factual foundation or follow the statutory procedure for adducing secondary evidence under the Evidence Act; therefore Exh.B-2 is inadmissible to prove the execution/contents of the PoA or the extent of authority to alienate. The First Appellate Court erred in relying on Exh.B-2; the High Court correctly set aside that reliance and restored the Trial Court's finding that the sale deeds were invalid. The High Court's interference under Section 100/103 CPC was justified as it corrected a misreading and reliance on inadmissible evidence, raising a substantial question of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Civil Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs