Concurrent findings in second appeal and attorney-executed sale deeds: High Court reappraisal was impermissible, and revocation without notice was ineffective.

In second appeal, the Supreme Court noted that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed by a fresh reappraisal of evidence unless a substantial question of law arises; the High Court therefore exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing factual findings. It also clarified that a sale deed executed by a power of attorney holder is not invalid merely because the original power of attorney was not produced, since the registration framework required a true copy of the document presented, not the original authority itself. Alleged cancellation of the authority did not defeat the sale because revocation was not shown to have been effectively communicated, and termination of agency does not bind third parties without notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court, in second appeal, was justified in reappreciating evidence and reversing concurrent findings; (ii) whether the sale deed executed by the power of attorney holder was invalid for want of production of the original power of attorney or for alleged cancellation of authority.

Issue (i): whether the High Court, in second appeal, was justified in reappreciating evidence and reversing concurrent findings.

Analysis: The dispute turned substantially on factual appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, including the parties' correspondence and the surrounding circumstances of the transaction. The trial court and the first appellate court had reached concurrent or substantially consistent findings on the core facts. In second appeal, interference is confined to substantial questions of law and does not extend to a fresh reappraisal of evidence merely because another view is possible. The High Court exceeded the permissible scope of jurisdiction by upsetting findings that were essentially factual in nature.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in reappreciating the evidence and reversing the findings below; its interference was impermissible in second appeal.

Issue (ii): whether the sale deed executed by the power of attorney holder was invalid for want of production of the original power of attorney or for alleged cancellation of authority.

Analysis: The scheme of the Registration Act shows that a person executing a document as attorney of the principal may present it for registration as the executant, and the registering officer's inquiry is directed to execution, identity, and the statutory requirements governing registration. Section 18A required a true copy of the document presented for registration, not the original power of attorney. The evidence did not establish a legally effective revocation communicated to the agent and, in any event, there was no reliable proof that the third party had notice of cancellation. Under the law of agency, termination does not operate against third parties until it becomes known to them. The sale could not, therefore, be treated as void on the grounds urged.

Conclusion: The sale deed was not invalid merely because the original power of attorney was not produced, and the alleged cancellation of authority did not defeat the sale.

Final Conclusion: The decree passed by the High Court could not stand, and the suit-based reliefs granted by it were set aside, restoring the result in favour of the purchaser and upholding the legality of the sale transaction.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact cannot be reversed by reappreciation of evidence, and a sale deed executed by an attorney-holder is not invalid for non-production of the original power of attorney where the authority was not effectively revoked and notice of revocation was not shown to have reached the third party.

---