Thangavel vs A.K.Velusamy on 19 September, 2014
16.The above said view has been taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in 2010-2-L.W. 357 (Standard Literature Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Padma and others), in para-12 it was held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.30 seconds)Documents citing
Standard Literature Company (P) Ltd vs Padma on 23 February, 2010
Rani vs Padmavathy on 25 November, 2019
Per contra, with
reference to the abovesaid contentions raised by the defendants'
counsel, according to the plaintiff's counsel, the power of attorney is
competent to adduce evidence regarding the matter within his
knowledge and accordingly, the evidence of PW1 is sufficient for
upholding the plaintiff's case and granting the reliefs prayed for by the
plaintiffs and in this connection, he would rely upon the decisions
28/37
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.214 of 2008
reported in AIR 2014 SC (630) (A.C.Narayanan Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr), 2008 (3) LW (840) (John Kennady @
Murugan Vs. V.Bhagavathi), the order passed by this High
Court dated 23.02.2010 in C.R.P.(NPD) No.2441 of 2009 and
M.p.No.1 of 2009 (Standard Literature Company (P) Ltd., Vs.
Padma and two others), the order passed by this Court dated
19.09.2014 in C.R.P. No.3436 and 3437 of 2014 and
M.P.Nos.1,1 of 2014 and the decision reported in 2004 (1) ALD
241 (Podelly Chinna Chinnanna Vs. Bandari Pedda Bhumanna
and ors.). Applying the principles of law outlined in the abovesaid
decisions as regards the competency of the power of attorney to
tender evidence on behalf of the principal, when it is seen that the
power of attorney agent is competent to adduce evidence which are
within the purview of his knowledge and accordingly, when PW1 has
tendered evidence as regards the claim of title of the plaintiff qua the
suit property by marking the sale deed as Ex.A1 and though PW1 may
not have direct knowledge about the permission granted to the
defendants to occupy the suit property as alleged in the plaint,
however, as above pointed out, the abovesaid case of the plaintiff
having not been established, still the suit property being found to be
only belonging to the plaintiffs and the defendants would only sustain
their occupation of the suit property by raising adverse possession and
29/37
http://www.judis.nic.in
A.S.No.214 of 2008
the abovesaid plea of adverse possession is required to be established
by the defendants, in the abovesaid scenario, considering the evidence
of PW1, in toto, it is found that the same is sufficient and acceptable as
regards the claim of title of the plaintiff to the suit property and the
entitlement of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs against the
defendants in the suit. In such view of the matter, the arguments of
the defendants' counsel that PW1 is not competent to tender evidence
on behalf of the plaintiffs, as such, cannot be accepted.
1