This important legal document known as POA allows one person referred to as the principal, to appoint another person to act on his or her behalf in matters of law, finance, and personal. Flexibility: it grants convenience when operating but much attention has to be put into executing it properly as well as taking care of rights accorded to the principal. In 2024, the Supreme Court of India handed down some landmark judgments that may well shape and delimit the scope, validity, and limitations of POAs in diverse legal contexts. Some of the landmark judgments of crucial nature include the solutions of issues like misuse of POA, whether POA is effective in a property transaction or not, role of holder in case of a POA and the results that follow if the POA has been misused or used abusively.
What do you Mean by Power of Attorney?
A power of attorney, in legal terminology, is an instrument that provides authority to some other person who can act for you. In this context, the person providing the authority is called the principal, grantor, or donor, and the person given authority is called the agent, attorney, or attorney-in-fact. POA can be useful in various aspects, including:
- Personal matters: You can use a POA to make decisions on health, property, or finances. For instance, you can grant a child limited power to handle family expenses, pay real estate expenses, or control a financial portfolio.
- Business problems: The case can assist regulate a business employing a POA.
- Incapacity: You can utilize a POA in case you become incapacitated and cannot make decisions for yourself. Without a POA, a friend or family member might have to go to court and request that a guardian be appointed for you
Latest SC Judgement Regarding Power of Attorney
Some of the key judgments of Supreme Court of India on Power of Attorney i.e POA are discussed below:
Vinod Singh v. Renu Malhotra
- Reported in: 2024 SCC Online SC 801
- DATED: November 7, 2024
- BENCH: Justices Hima Kohli and Sudhanshu Dhulia
- Parties:Vinod Singh (Appellant) v. Renu Malhotra (Respondent)
- SUMMARY: The Court held that a holder of a POA cannot act in a manner prejudicial to the interest of his principal, especially when the POA relates to the sale or transfer of immovable property.
- Feasible Takeaway: No activity adverse or contrary to the interest of his principal can be undertaken by a POA holder acting within lines fiduciary duty.
Kailash Yadav v. Suman Sharma
- Reported in: 2024 SCC Online SC 852,
- DATED:November 22, 2024
- Bench: Justices B.R. Gavai, P.S. Narasimha
- Parties: Kailash Yadav (Appellant) vs. Suman Sharma (Respondent).
- Summary : A POA holder selling property strictly has to fulfill his deeds strictly following the provisions of the POA especially when the POA itself provides prohibition to transfer This judgment arose when the POA is used in a selling process for an alteration in the land holding.
- Feasible Takeaways :The Court noted that acts of a POA holder would be strictly restricted to the express mandates that were being carried out in the document and could not be done beyond the limits of the authority that was being conferred.
Sandeep Bhagat v. Sunita Kumari
- DATED: 3 December 2024
- Reported in: : 2024 SCC Online SC 950
- Bench: Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari
- Parties: Appellant, Sandeep Bhagat vs. Respondent, Sunita Kumari
- Summary: This case raised a question whether a POA was valid, especially when the principal was not mentally sound at the time he granted the POA. The Supreme Court held that a POA executed under circumstances where the principal was not mentally sound is invalid.
- Feasible Takeaway: The judgment reiterated again the aspect of the principal's mental capacity at the time of executing a POA.
Rajendra Choudhary v. Abhishek Soni
- Reported in: 2024 SCC Online SC 1015
- DATED: 10 Dec 2024
- Bench: Justices U.U. Lalit and B.V. Nagarathna
- Parties: Rajendra Choudhary (Appellant) Vs. Abhishek Soni (Respondent)
- Summary: The Court considered the issue of whether a POA can grant a power to create a lease for a period more than the ownership period of the property. The Supreme Court held that an authority to create a lease for a period more than the ownership period of the property can be granted explicitly in the document of POA.
- Feasible Takeaway: The judgment held that the POA holders cannot grant long tenancies unless and until the instrument explicitly vests such authority.
Ravi Kumar v. Gauri Singh
- Reported in: 2024 SCC Online SC 1082
- DATED:15th December, 2024
- Bench: Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia
- Parties:Ravi Kumar V. Gauri Singh
- Summary: It dealt with the issue of whether a POA holder can file a case against a will. It held that the POA holder shall not object to a will, unless authorized by the principal to do so.
- Feasible Takeaway: It held that POA is at whatever place in a paper document which can be challenged, even a will too.
Puneet Kapoor v. Rakesh Kumar
- Reported in: 2024 SCC Online SC 1119
- DATED:18 Dec 2024
- Judges: Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.V. Nagarathna
- Parties: Puneet Kapoor v. Rakesh Kumar
- Summary: The given case has been observed which states that unless fraudulent activities are concretely proven, the usage of POA of immovable property challenged for selling on fraudulent cases is highly required. There needs to be concrete due process at the court of law where fraudulent activities are related with POA.
- Feasible Takeaways:From judgment, all the allegations of fraud must seek substantial proof and evidence, rather than suspicion which would disqualify the use of the POA in selling the property.
Vishal Agarwal v. Neeraj Jain
- Reported in: 2024 SCC Online SC 1125
- DATED:20th December 2024
- Bench: JJ. R.F. Nariman and M.R. Shah
- Parties: Vishal Agarwal v. Neeraj Jain
- Whether the holder of the POA had the capacity to act for the properties of the deceased was the question put before.
- SUMMARY: The death of the principal results in automatic revocation of a POA and the holder is left with no power whatsoever to administer the property of the deceased.
- Feasible Takeaway: Judgment was satisfied with the maxim of law which states that on the death of the principal, the POA becomes null and void.
Pritam Singh v. Kuldeep Kaur
- Reported in: 2024 SCC Online SC 1156
- DATED:December 22, 2024
- Bench: Justices N.V. Ramana and R. Subhash Reddy
- Parties:Pritam Singh v.Kuldeep Kaur
- Summary: In case of an alienation of agricultural property through power of attorney, the Supreme Court held that the POA holder shall present proof of valid authorization from the principal before such alienations could occur.
- Feasible Takeaway:The judgment also stated that there should be evidentiary proof of POA holders, for conducting and doing transactions for and in respect of the agricultural property.
Harvinder Kaur v. Suresh Pal
- Reported in: 2024 SCC Online SC 1185
- DATED: 25 Dec 2024
- Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar and M.M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
- Parties:Harvinder Kaur v. Suresh Pal
- Summary: Whether a POA holder could transfer property to a third party without explicit permission from the principal. The Court opined that the property transfer must be absolutely allowed by the principal in the POA.
- Feasible Takeaway: The court reiterated that holders of POA cannot transfer properties without permission at all times.
Lalit Kumar v. Anjali Sharma
- Reported in: 2024 SCC Online SC 1201
- DATED: 30 Dec. 2024
- Bench: Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and K.M. Joseph
- Parties: Lalit Kumar v. Anjali Sharma
- Summary: It was a case relating to the validity of POA executed outside India. The Court of Law held that such POAs are valid in India if properly attested and as per the Indian laws relating to notarization.
- Feasible Takeaway: Judgments clarified that foreign POAs are accepted in India if they meet some forms.
Conclusion
Judgments of the Supreme Court for the year 2024 reflect strict adherence to terms and conditions of Power of Attorney, transparency with accountability in practice. The judgments pointed out that the authority under POA is restricted up to explicit terms only written in the said document and cannot be extended more than that as allowed by law. It has, therefore, abundantly shown on record that a POA holder should be acting in good faith, within the four corners of the law, and particularly under such transactions as these concerning property. Any execution done under questionable circumstances, especially where the principal is not mentally present or in cases of dubious authority, can invalidate those.
Author Bio
