Power of attorney evidence and concurrent findings limit second appeal interference in title and possession disputes.

A duly authorised power of attorney holder is competent to depose in a suit for declaration and possession; Order III CPC does not bar such evidence, though its weight depends on the witness's personal knowledge. Documentary evidence, including a registered sale deed, may be proved through competent witnesses, and the plaintiff's own testimony is not always indispensable. In second appeal, concurrent findings on title, adverse possession, permissive possession, and property identity will not be disturbed unless a substantial question of law, perversity, or legal error is shown. As the objections were factual and no substantial question of law arose, the second appeal failed and the decree for the plaintiff was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the evidence of a power of attorney holder could be relied upon to prove the plaintiff's title and possession in a suit for declaration and possession. (ii) Whether any substantial question of law arose for interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below in second appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the evidence of a power of attorney holder could be relied upon to prove the plaintiff's title and possession in a suit for declaration and possession.

Analysis: A power of attorney holder is not incompetent to depose merely because he is an agent. The competence of a witness is governed by the law of evidence, while the weight of his testimony depends on whether the matters stated are within his personal knowledge. Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure regulates appearance and acts in proceedings, but does not exclude deposition by a duly authorised agent. In a suit founded on title, documentary evidence such as a registered sale deed may be proved through the executant or other competent witnesses, and the plaintiff's personal knowledge is not always indispensable.

Conclusion: The evidence of the power of attorney holder was not inadmissible as a matter of law, and the plaintiff's case was not liable to fail on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether any substantial question of law arose for interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below in second appeal.

Analysis: The findings on title, adverse possession, permissive possession, and identity of the property were concurrent findings based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. No perversity, misapplication of law, or legal error was demonstrated. The objections raised were essentially factual in nature and did not generate a substantial question of law warranting interference in second appeal.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the concurrent findings were left undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: The second appeal failed at the threshold and the decree in favour of the plaintiff stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a title suit, a duly authorised power of attorney holder may depose and prove documentary evidence, but his testimony is limited by personal knowledge; in second appeal, concurrent findings of fact are not disturbed absent a substantial question of law.

---