Supreme Court: Notarised Photocopy of Power of Attorney Is Not Valid Evidence
The Supreme Court has ruled that a notarised photocopy of a General Power of Attorney (GPA) cannot be treated as valid legal evidence unless the requirements for proving primary or secondary evidence are strictly fulfilled.
A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti upheld the Kerala High Court’s decision, which had rejected a property transfer claim based solely on a notarised photocopy of a power of attorney. The ruling clarifies the evidentiary standards required in civil property disputes.
• Case Title: Tharammel Peethambaran & Anr. vs T. Ushakrishnan & Anr.
• The dispute involved transfer of joint family property.
• The defendant relied on Exhibit B-2, a notarised photocopy of a Power of Attorney.
• The original document was not produced before the trial court.
• No formal foundation was laid to admit secondary evidence.
• The Trial Court rejected the document; the First Appellate Court accepted it.
• The High Court set aside the appellate ruling; the Supreme Court upheld the High Court.
The litigation arose from a civil suit concerning the transfer of a property described as “Plaint A-Schedule” property. The plaintiff claimed that the property was joint family property and argued that no valid power of attorney had been executed authorising the first defendant to transfer it.
In response, the first defendant relied on Exhibit B-2, a notarised photocopy of a power of attorney, to assert authority to transfer the property.
The Bench stated that mere production of a notarised photocopy does not establish legal authority. The Court clarified that unless the foundational requirements under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied, courts cannot presume due execution under Section 85. Similarly, presumptions under Section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908 cannot be invoked unless the document itself is legally proved.
The Court emphasised that secondary evidence is an exception and can be admitted only after proving that the original document is lost, unavailable, or otherwise legally admissible under prescribed conditions.
The Trial Court had refused to accept the photocopy as evidence because the original document was not produced and no proper procedure was followed to admit secondary evidence. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this finding and accepted Exhibit B-2 as proof of authority.
The High Court later corrected this approach, holding that the appellate court had relied on inadmissible evidence. The Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning and dismissed the appeal.
Under the Indian Evidence Act, primary evidence refers to the original document itself. Secondary evidence, such as a photocopy, may be allowed only after establishing legally recognised grounds, such as loss or destruction of the original.
Section 85 of the Evidence Act allows courts to presume that a power of attorney was properly executed if it appears authenticated. However, this presumption applies only after the document is legally proved. The Court reiterated that judges cannot independently compare disputed signatures without proper evidentiary basis or expert assistance.
The Bench also criticised the appellate court’s attempt to compare disputed signatures in the photocopy with other signatures without relying on admitted signatures or expert testimony. The Court reaffirmed that such comparison must follow settled legal principles.
The ruling reinforces procedural safeguards in property transactions. It highlights that notarisation alone does not make a photocopy legally sufficient. For individuals and property holders, the judgment underlines the importance of maintaining original documents and following due process when presenting evidence in court.
The decision may influence ongoing civil property disputes where parties rely on photocopies without satisfying evidentiary requirements.
What Is Officially Confirmed
The Supreme Court has confirmed that a notarised photocopy of a power of attorney cannot be relied upon as valid evidence unless primary or legally admissible secondary evidence is properly established. The appeal challenging the Kerala High Court’s decision has been dismissed.
What Is Not Established
The ruling does not question the broader legal validity of properly executed and proved powers of attorney. It addresses only the evidentiary standards applicable when such documents are produced in court without original proof.
Disclosure
This article is based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Tharammel Peethambaran & Anr. vs T. Ushakrishnan & Anr. Legal interpretations are drawn from the text of the ruling. Court records remain the authoritative source, and further clarifications may emerge if review proceedings are filed.
FAQs
1. Is a notarised photocopy of a GPA legally valid?
Not by itself. It must meet the evidentiary requirements under the Indian Evidence Act before being accepted in court.
2. What is primary evidence?
Primary evidence refers to the original document produced before the court.
3. When can secondary evidence be accepted?
Secondary evidence can be admitted only after proving legally recognised grounds such as loss or unavailability of the original document.
4. What was the final outcome of the case?
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Kerala High Court’s decision.
References / Sources
• Supreme Court of India – Official Judgments Portal: https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments
.png)
