Supreme Court Clarifies: No Sub-Delegation Allowed for Functions of GPA Holders

The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, elucidated the limitations on General Power of Attorney (GPA) holders, affirming that their functions cannot be delegated to others without explicit permission. The decision, delivered by the Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, underscores the legal constraints governing the role of GPA holders in legal proceedings.

The case in question involved a dispute over easementary rights concerning a road situated on land owned by the respondents. The appellants, seeking easementary rights, contended that their access to the land was solely reliant on the disputed road. However, the court’s observations shed light on critical legal principles governing the testimony of GPA holders and the acquisition of easementary rights.

One significant aspect addressed by the court was the admissibility of GPA holders as witnesses. Emphasizing the principle that a GPA holder cannot delegate the power to appear as a witness, the court highlighted the necessity for personal knowledge of the transaction in question for a GPA holder to testify. The ruling referenced precedents to reinforce this stance, reiterating that the absence of transactional knowledge precludes a GPA holder from testifying.

Additionally, the court delved into the legal framework surrounding easementary rights, elucidating the requirements for their acquisition. Citing the Indian Easements Act, 1882, the court outlined the conditions for asserting easementary rights, emphasizing peaceful enjoyment over a minimum period of 20 years. The ruling emphasized the distinction between “last many years” and the requisite duration for asserting such rights, emphasizing the need for uninterrupted use over two decades.

Moreover, the court underscored that easementary rights by necessity must align with statutory provisions, necessitating a compelling need for enjoying the dominant heritage. The ruling, guided by the legal principles enshrined in the Indian Easements Act, 1882, underscored the necessity for strict adherence to statutory requirements for the assertion of such rights.

In its decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellants’ claims, ruling against their assertion of easementary rights over the disputed land. The judgment reaffirms the legal principles governing the role of GPA holders and the criteria for asserting easementary rights, setting a precedent for future legal proceedings in similar contexts.

The ruling serves as a clarion call for adherence to legal norms and underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding statutory provisions in matters of property rights and legal representation.

 If you like this law news, share it with a friend!