Gomathi Amma Suseela vs Thevi on 27 September, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RSA No. 676 of 2007()


1. GOMATHI AMMA SUSEELA,RESIDING AT
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THEVI, KUTTIYIL VEEDU,
                       ...       Respondent

2. BHASKARAN, KUTTIYIL VEEDU, DO..DO...

3. THE ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.SURESH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :27/09/2007

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
            ===========================
            R.S.A. NO. 676     OF 2007
            ===========================

     Dated this the 27th day of September,2007

                     JUDGMENT

Plaintiff in O.S.424/1990 on the file of

Munsiff Court, Adoor is the appellant. Defendants

are the respondents. Appellant instituted the suit

seeking a decree for a permanent prohibitory

injunction through her brother, on the strength of

a power of attorney executed by plaintiff sister

when she left the native place. Respondents raised

a contention before the trial court that the power

of attorney does not authorise the power of

attorney holder to institute the suit and it only

enables the power of attorney holder to execute

document on behalf of his sister and therefore the

suit is not maintainable.

2. Learned Munsiff accepted the objection and

dismissed the suit as not maintainable. Plaintiff

through the power of attorney holder filed

A.S.36/2004 before District Court, Pathanamthitta.

R.S.A.676/07 2

The learned Additional District Judge on analysing

Ext. A2 power of attorney held that it is a not a

general power of attorney and is only a special

power of attorney and it does not authorise the

power of attorney holder to institute the suit.

Appeal was dismissed. It is challenged in the

second appeal contending that Ext.A2 is a general

power of attorney and therefore the power of

attorney holder is entitled to institute the suit.

2. Learned counsel appearing for appellant was

heard. Learned counsel made available a copy of

Ext.A2. On going through Ext.A2, it is absolutely

clear that the power of attorney holder was

authorised by his sister, appellant only to

execute document on her behalf and not to

institute any suit. It is not a general power of

attorney. In such circumstance, no substantial

R.S.A.676/07 3

question of law is involved in the appeal. The

appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that

dismissal of the appeal will not prevent the

appellant from instituting a suit by herself or

through a proper power of attorney holder.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

———————

W.P.(C).NO. /06

———————

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER,2006