Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. It is submitted that the appellant no. 2 was only the GPA holder for the other plaintiffs and did not have the authority to testify beyond what he had witnessed, including the execution of alleged registered documents. The GPA holder did not have a personal knowledge of the matter of the plaintiff nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 and therefore, he could neither depose on his personal knowledge nor could be cross-examine on the facts averred in the plaint. None of the original owners were produced as witnesses before the Trial Court. It is submitted that the appellant no. 2 became party to the suit before the Trial Court only to divert this objection. Moreover, all the parties have not approached this Court impugning the judgment passed by the Trial Court. It is further submitted that none of the essential witnesses were called upon to prove the case of title/ownership.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO:2023/DHC/000375

47. It is also pertinent to note, that the Trial Court while deciding the Issues No. II and III had observed that the evidence of GPA holder/appellant no. 2 could not be accepted since the law laid down restricts the GPA holder to depose only to the extent that he has witnessed, however, in the instant case, the witness examined by the defence were neither a party to the transfer alleged by them, nor a witness and were not even the GPA or agent of those who were a part of the transfer. They had no foundation for testifying that a transfer had taken place in favour of the respondent. The Trial Court very categorically observed as under, despite which the aforesaid decision in favour of the respondent was made:-

56. To adjudge the issue whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the possession of the Suit Property it was necessary to investigate the title of the plaintiffs while considering the facts and more importantly the documents reproduced.

57. The plaintiffs produced the Sale Deed executed between the M/s Cheap Housing Company and the plaintiff no. 1 and 3, however, the main plea taken on behalf of the defendants and also reiterated by the Trial Court is that the GPA holder does not have the power and authority to testify in favour of a document which was not executed in his presence. The position of law is clear on this aspect and this position has been upheld. A testimony of a GPA holder shall not be considered as a valid proof of a document or event which has not been witnessed by him/her.

58. It is an admitted and undisputed position that appellant no. 1 was a co-owner of the Suit Property, as has been reiterated in the impugned judgment as well as the written submissions placed before the Court by the respondent. Appellant no. 2, being the son of the co-owner has vested interest in the property and was also the GPA holder on behalf of the plaintiff no. 1 to 3 and 6, therefore, was made a party to the suit. Being a plaintiff himself, it is erroneous to say that only his status as a GPA holder was relevant to consider or not to consider the statement made and evidence adduced by him.