Mrs Uma Devi Nambiar Vs Th Roman Catholic (Supreme Court of India)
Date-1st April,2022

Sub- Whether a Power of attorney holder can confer better title than what he/she himself had and transfer an immovable property by virtue of such power is valid or void?

In this case related to dispute between two sisters where after the death of their father, they became entitled to equal share in a property and the appellant being one of the sister herein having given a power of attorney to other sister for some purposes found that the POA holder had transferred/assigned the property by virtue of the POA and the transferees/assignees later on sold the property to the respondents herein. The Supreme Court on these facts was called upon to decide whether POA holder had conveyed a valid title in terms of the POA or not. The respondents interalia argued that the POA was drafted by a doyen of Bar and that the appellant had constructive notice u/s 41 of the Transfer of Property Act as she stayed barely 1 km from the place where the property on which was Mall was constructed.

However, the Apex court held that the Power of attorney should expressly authorise the agent to execute a sale deed, to present it for registration and to admit before the Registering authority. Finally, by saying that It is a fundamental principle of the law of transfer of property that “no one can confer a better title than what he himself has”(Nemo dat quod non habet), the court held that what the agent conveyed on the respondent herein was not the property but perhaps the litigation, allowing the appeal.

This judgement brings to forefront the intricacies and care needed to be taken while giving any power of attorney to any person be it near and dear or any one lest it can result in litigation for decades like in this case where the POA was granted in the year 1971.

Ramesh Patodia
05-04-2022