Proof of authority and secondary evidence failed, and new ratification or estoppel pleas could not be raised on appeal

Authority to proceed in liquidation and be substituted in a mortgage decree was rejected because the alleged assignment was unsupported by a duly signed document and the concurrent findings found no proved authority in Balakram to act for the bank. Secondary evidence of the alleged power of attorney was also refused, as non-production of the original was not satisfactorily explained and the extract was not shown to be a correct copy or made by a proved writer. The plea of ratification or estoppel could not be raised for the first time on appeal. The challenge therefore failed on the concurrent findings against the appellant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether permission could be granted to proceed in liquidation and substitute the appellant in the mortgage decree on the basis of the alleged assignment and authority; (ii) Whether secondary evidence of the alleged power of attorney was admissible and sufficient to prove Balakram's authority; (iii) Whether the plea of ratification or estoppel could be raised for the first time at the appellate stage.

Issue (i): Whether permission could be granted to proceed in liquidation and substitute the appellant in the mortgage decree on the basis of the alleged assignment and authority.

Analysis: The application depended entirely on an alleged assignment said to have been made before liquidation, but the document produced bore no signature of any director or official on behalf of the bank. The concurrent findings in India also negatived the existence of proved authority in Balakram to act for the bank.

Conclusion: The claim to proceed in liquidation on that basis failed.

Issue (ii): Whether secondary evidence of the alleged power of attorney was admissible and sufficient to prove Balakram's authority.

Analysis: The original power of attorney was not produced, and its non-production was not satisfactorily explained so as to satisfy the conditions for admission of secondary evidence. The extract relied upon was not shown to have been made by a proved writer or to be a correct copy, and the evidence of Balakram was found inconsistent and unreliable.

Conclusion: Secondary evidence was not admissible or sufficient to prove authority.

Issue (iii): Whether the plea of ratification or estoppel could be raised for the first time at the appellate stage.

Analysis: The plea was a question of fact that had not been in issue at the trial and was sought to be introduced only at the appellate stage.

Conclusion: The plea could not be entertained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the concurrent findings against the appellant, and the dismissal of the challenge stood affirmed.

---