Strict construction of power of attorney: mukhtar lacked authority to sign and verify the income-tax return.

A power of attorney must be construed strictly from the whole instrument, so only expressly granted or necessarily implied authority will bind the principal. The mukhtarnama authorised the agent to conduct litigation and other proceedings, but it did not extend to signing or verifying an income-tax return, which is a declaration of income rather than an application or written statement. No implied authority, agency by estoppel, or subsequent ratification was established. The return signed and verified by the mukhtar was therefore not binding on the assessee, and the referred question was answered in the negative.

---

---

Issues: Whether a return of income signed and verified by a mukhtar under the terms of the power of attorney was binding on the assessee.

Analysis: The authority conferred by a power of attorney must be gathered from the whole instrument and construed strictly, so as to include only powers expressly granted or necessarily implied. On the terms of the mukhtarnama, the agent was empowered to represent the principal in litigation and other proceedings, but not to sign or verify an income-tax return, which is a declaration of income and not an application or a written statement in the sense used in the document. No implied agency was made out from the language of the instrument, and the facts did not establish agency by estoppel or subsequent ratification of the unauthorized return.

Conclusion: The return signed and verified by the mukhtar was not binding on the assessee, and the answer to the referred question was in the negative.

---