A KARUPPANNA PILLAI Vs. NALLATHAMBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant against the order of the learned District Munsiff, Turaiyur, rejecting the memo filed by him taking exception to the lower Court receiving the powers of Attorney in evidence.

(2.) The suit itself has been filed by the respondents against the petitioner for declaration of title, recovery of possession for accounts from 1981 and for the future mesne profits. Respondents 1 to 3 who are plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the suit and permanent residents of Sri Lanka, purported to appoint the fourth respondent as their Power of Attorney Holder in India. Along with the suit I.A. No. 612 of 1988 was filed to permit the fourth respondent to file the suit as power of Attorney Holder. This application was ordered on 19.8.1988. After the trial got over, the respondents filed an application in I.A.No. 247 of 1997 to receive the original power of Attorney executed by the second respondent in favour of the fourth respondent contending that the original power was filed in O.S. No. 663 of 1983 before the District Munsif's Court, Turaiyur, filed by the revision petitioner, that after the disposal of the said suit, they had obtained return of the original on 27.3.97 and were presenting the same immediately thereafter before the lower Court, that the petitioner was making much comment about the non-production of the original power and therefore, the application came to be filed.

(3.) The petitioner resisted the application contending inter alia that it was revealed in evidence that the existence of the power and its current validity was in doubt, that the power of Attorney document had not been validated according to the Indian Stamp Act, that the provisions of Section 18 of the Stamp Act had not been complied with, that the powers of Attorney had not been duly stamped as per the requirement of Stamp Act as applicable to Delhi, that there was no indication that they had been validated at all within three months from the date of their receipt in India, that the documents were not acceptable in evidence and could not be acted upon and therefore the application had to be rejected.