Cancellation Of Power Of Attorney Does Not Revive Time‑Barred Challenges To Prior Conveyances

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal against a High Court order that set aside the Trial Court’s rejection of a plaint as barred by limitation. The appeal arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging sale deeds executed on the strength of a general power of attorney; the Special Leave Petition (Civ.) No. 9472 of 2023 was heard as Civil Appeal 2025 INSC 343.

The Court allowed the appeal and held that cancellation of a power of attorney could not be treated as the point of commencement of limitation for challenging earlier conveyances validly executed under that power. The Court emphasised that the cancellation “did not affect the prior conveyances made which are clearly on the strength of the power conferred” and that a subsequent cancellation could not confer a fresh cause of action upon the person who had executed the power. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 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.” The Court further noted that the High Court had “erroneously treated the cancellation as the point of commencement of limitation.”

Background The plaintiff instituted a suit on September 20, 2018, seeking declaration and injunction to set aside various sale deeds and to restrain the defendant from interfering with possession of suit properties. A general power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first respondent dated October 15, 2004, had been used to effect conveyances in 2004–06 and 2009. The power holder (first defendant) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Sections 10, 11 and 150 CPC, urging that the plaint was barred by limitation. The Trial Court examined the averments and documents and found that the plaint was time‑barred, noting a patta dated January 10, 2015 indicating conveyance and knowledge of transactions; the Trial Court therefore rejected the plaint.

On appeal the High Court reversed, treating the power of attorney as having been cancelled on September 22, 2015, and held that limitation commenced from that cancellation date, directing restoration of the suit for adjudication on merits. The appellant challenged the High Court’s view before the Supreme Court, contending that limitation could not commence from cancellation and that prior conveyances could not be unsettled after a decade. The respondent‑plaintiff argued that the transactions were collusive and fraudulent. The Supreme Court found no allegation that the power of attorney failed to confer authority to convey or that it was obtained by fraud or coercion; it concluded that cancellation occurring after the conveyances could not revive time‑barred challenges and set aside the High Court order, affirming the Trial Court’s rejection of the plaint. The appeal was allowed and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 343 Case Title: V. Ravikumar v. S. Kumar Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Senior Counsel for respondent‑plaintiff (name not specified in the judgment)