In Brief
A property owner in Kozhikode challenged the sale of her immovable property executed by her brother-in-law using a power of attorney (PoA). She claimed the PoA granted only limited authority to manage the property, not to sell it. The defendant produced a notarised photocopy of the PoA as evidence of broader authority. The trial court voided the sale deeds, finding the PoA fabricated. The first appellate court reversed this, relying on the photocopy and presumptions of validity. The High Court restored the trial court's judgment, holding the photocopy inadmissible secondary evidence lacking proper foundation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, emphasising that secondary evidence requires strict procedural compliance and cannot support presumptions of authority without first establishing the original document's validity through proper legal procedures.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.