Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Smt.Anupama is made out. Therefore, even if it is assumed for a moment that the power-of-attorney did not confer absolute power on her mother Smt.Santha Bai to execute the document relinquishing the share in the property, the subsequent act of the plaintiff would dispel any doubt as regards the question of ratification. Thus, according to the learned counsel, a clear case of implied ratification under Section 199 of the Indian Contract Act has been made out.

15. Read as may, this Court could not find any specific power in the aforesaid power-of-attorney which conferred the power to Smt.Santha Bai to relinquish the share in favour of herself, which was available to her daughters Smt.Anupama and Smt.Aruna. Though the power-of-attorney contains a clause for ratification, whether the evidence adduced by the parties show such an express or implied ratification is a matter which will be discussed in the preceding paragraphs.

16. Suffice to say, the power-of-attorney does not grant Smt.Santha Bai an absolute right to relinquish share of her daughters in her own favour. Resultantly, the only conclusion possible is that the Ext.A2 partition deed is not binding upon Smt.Anupama and her sister & 226/2012 2025:KER:51131 Smt.Aruna. As regards the other co-sharers, it is evident from Ext.A2 that they have affixed their signature voluntarily by relinquishing their share in favour of their mother Smt.Santha Bai.

18. Sri.G.Keerthivas - learned counsel for the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/2008 further contended that, a case of ratification is made out in terms of Section 196 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Though it is possible for the principal to ratify the acts of an agent if done without authority, the burden is certainly on the person who alleges that the principal has ratified the unauthorised act of the agent. Under Section 197 of the Contract Act, ratification may be expressed or implied. Section 199 provides for the effect of ratifying the & 226/2012 2025:KER:51131 unauthorised act. No doubt, Section 199 of the Contract Act provides that a person ratifying any unauthorised act on his behalf ratifies the whole of the transaction of which such act formed a part. However, it is difficult to hold with the available evidence in the present case that the daughters of Smt.Santha Bai had either expressly or impliedly ratified her mother relinquishing their share over the plaint schedule property.

19. To make out a case for implied ratification, the learned counsel, Sri.G.Keerthivas, relied on the oral testimony of DW1. No doubt, in her oral testimony DW1 had stated that she was aware of the execution of the partition deed Ext.A2. However, the mere knowledge of the execution of the partition deed by itself cannot be construed as a case for implied ratification. The reading of the judgment of the First Appellate Court clearly shows that except Smt.Anupama and Smt.Aruna, all other sharers were present at the time of registration. Though it is observed by the First Appellate Court that Smt.Anupama took active part in the preparation of the partition deed, the evidence adduced by the parties in this case is insufficient to hold such participation on the part of Smt.Anupama. At any rate, this Court having held that the power-of-attorney executed in favour of Smt.Santha Bai is invalid, no consequences would follow from the participation of Smt.Anupama in the preparation of the partition deed. & 226/2012 2025:KER:51131 Had Smt.Anupama and Smt.Aruna been present at the time of registration or affixed the document in any capacity as attesting witness or such other capacity, then a possible case of expressed or implied ratification could have been made out. Suffice to say, the evidence adduced in this case does not persuade this Court to hold that a case of expressed or implied ratification is made out as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff.