Power of attorney evidence cannot replace personal testimony on matters of knowledge, and property share must be proved by the claimant.

A power of attorney holder may act for a principal under Order III Rules 1 and 2 CPC, but cannot give evidence in place of the principal on matters within the principal's personal knowledge; such matters require testimony from the person who actually knows the facts. The document also states that where a party bears the burden of proving a share in property, failure to enter the witness box and failure to prove independent contribution or source of funds is fatal. On the facts discussed, the claimed co-ownership was not established, and the contrary finding was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a power of attorney holder can depose in place of the principal on matters within the principal's personal knowledge; (ii) whether the appellants proved that they had a share in, and were co-owners of, the disputed property.

Issue (i): whether a power of attorney holder can depose in place of the principal on matters within the principal's personal knowledge.

Analysis: Order III Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permit a power of attorney holder to act for the principal, but the authority to act does not extend to giving evidence in place of the principal on matters that are within the principal's own knowledge. A witness on such matters must be the person who actually knows the facts and is answerable to cross-examination. A power of attorney holder may speak only to acts performed by him under the authority granted, not to matters requiring the principal's personal testimony.

Conclusion: A power of attorney holder cannot depose for the principal on matters within the principal's personal knowledge.

Issue (ii): whether the appellants proved that they had a share in, and were co-owners of, the disputed property.

Analysis: The burden of proving a share in the property had been placed on the appellants. They did not enter the witness box, and the evidence led through the power of attorney holder did not establish an independent source of income or actual contribution by them towards the purchase of the property. The documentary material relied upon did not reliably prove that the consideration was paid from their own independent income or that they were co-owners on the date of the decrees. The Tribunal's contrary finding was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The appellants failed to prove any share in the property or co-ownership thereof.

Final Conclusion: The finding of co-ownership recorded by the Tribunal was set aside, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A power of attorney holder may act for a principal, but cannot substitute the principal as a witness on matters requiring the principal's personal knowledge; where the burden of proving ownership or share in property lies on a party, failure to depose personally and prove independent contribution is fatal.

---