Article submitted by Aishwarya Deshpande
- Introduction:
In the recent case of V. Ravikumar v. S. Kumar (2025 SCC Online SC 513) [i], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“SC”) has addressed a significant legal issue concerning the limitation period for challenging transactions executed under a power of attorney. The case revolved around the validity of sale deeds executed under an authorised power of attorney and whether the limitation period should commence from the date of cancellation of the power of attorney or from the date of the transactions themselves.
[i] V. Ravikumar v. S. Kumar, (2025 SCC Online SC 513), dated 03.03.2025
- Case Brief:
The dispute originated when the Plaintiff, V. Ravikumar, filed a suit seeking a declaration that various sale deeds executed under a power of attorney were null and void. Additionally, he sought an injunction to prevent the Defendant, S. Kumar, from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit properties. The power of attorney in question had been executed on October 15, 2004, with subsequent sale deeds executed between 2004 and 2009. The Plaintiff claimed that he became aware of these transactions only on September 21, 2015, and filed the suit within three years of that date, on September 20, 2018. In this case, the principal instituted a suit for a declaration that the sale deeds executed on the strength of the power of attorney were null and void. The agents raised a defense that the suit was barred by limitation, arguing that the principal became aware of the sale deeds long before the claimed date of cancellation. Under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 a suit for cancellation of any instrument must be instituted within three years from the date when the facts forming the basis for such cancellation first became known to the party.
- Trial Court’s Decision:
The Defendant, S. Kumar, moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), contending that the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial Court observed that the Plaintiff had access to a patta document dated January 10, 2015, which indicated the conveyance of the property. As a result, the court found that the Plaintiff had knowledge of the transactions from that date, making the suit time-barred. Consequently, the plaint was rejected.
- High Court’s Decision:
On appeal, the High Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision, ruling that the limitation period should commence from September 22, 2015, when the power of attorney was formally cancelled. It directed the Trial Court to restore the suit and proceed with the case on its merits.
- Supreme Court’s Ruling:
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, overturned the High Court’s decision. The Court held that:
- Limitation does not commence from the date of cancellation of the power of attorney. The transactions were executed lawfully when the power of attorney was valid, and the Plaintiff cannot seek to unsettle them after more than a decade.
- The suit was time-barred. Even if the Plaintiff discovered the transactions on January 10, 2015, he failed to act within the prescribed limitation period.
- A power of attorney, once executed, grants the authority to the agent to act on behalf of the principal. The subsequent cancellation of the power does not invalidate past transactions carried out within the authority granted.
Thus, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling and reinstated the Trial Court’s decision, affirming the rejection of the plaint. The Supreme Court relied on the Trial Court’s finding that the principal became aware of the sale deeds before the claimed date of cancellation, thereby holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the order of the High Court reversing the rejection of a plaint on the ground of limitation. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran asserted,
“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.”[i]
The Supreme Court has observed that sale transactions carried out on the basis of a valid power of attorney cannot be sought to be set aside later on the ground that the power of attorney was cancelled subsequently. The Court further held that, since the execution of the power of attorney was not disputed and there was no allegation of coercion or fraud, the cancellation of the power of attorney would not affect the validity of the conveyances carried out under the authority of the duly executed power of attorney. Once an act is properly authorized, the cancellation of the power of attorney doesn’t give rise to a cause of action to challenge past transactions. Simply put, cancelling a power of attorney does not undo actions that were lawfully done before the cancellation.
[i] V. Ravikumar v. S. Kumar, (2025 SCC Online SC 513), dated 03.03.2025
- Conclusion:
This ruling reinforces the principle that transactions executed under a legally valid power of attorney cannot be challenged solely on the basis of its later cancellation. The judgment clarifies that limitation for such suits should be reckoned from the date of execution of the sale deeds, not from the date of cancellation of the power of attorney. The case serves as a significant precedent in property law and limitation jurisprudence in India.
