Disposed

Gudavalli Sivarama Krishna v. Koneru Rma Thulasamma

Telangana HC11 Mar 2010CRP/241/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision under Article 227, the High Court clarified the scope of evidence given by a General Power of Attorney holder. Relying on Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani, the court held that a G.P.A. holder can only testify to facts within his own knowledge, not facts within the principal's personal knowledge, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Clarifications issued regarding the scope of evidence by a G.P.A. holder; no order as to costs.

Gudavalli Sivarama Krishna Vs Koneru Rma… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.241 OF 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gudavali Sivarama Krishna, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 46 years, R/o.D.No.10-52, Gandhi Nagar, Beside Kanya and Sri Kanya Theatres, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. --- Petitioner/Respondent Defendant.

¶9

AND

¶10

1. Koneru Rama Thulasamma, W/o.Late Venkatadri, Aged 70 years, R/o.D.No.10-6-7, Beside SBI main Road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.

¶11

2. O. Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Late Veeraju, Aged 36 years, R/o.DNo.27-3-71, Street No.1, Official Colony, Srinagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. --- Respondents/Petitioners Plaintiffs.

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶14

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.241 OF 2009

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the Order and decree, dated 18-11-2008 made in I.A.No.1227 of 2008 in O.S. No.585 of 2006, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, whereunder and whereby a petition filed by the second petitioner therein to represent and give evidence on behalf of the first petitioner therein under General Power of Attorney, dated 08-07-2008, was allowed.

¶17

2. Heard both sides.

¶18

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that G.P.A. holder can not give evidence on behalf of the principal except to the facts which are within his knowledge.

¶19

4. The learned counsel for the Respondents contended that the order under challenge is not shown to be perverse or improper, in view of the fact that G.P.A holder can give evidence on behalf of the principal. On the point to what extent the G.P.A. can give evidence on behalf of the principal, law is well settled as laid down in a decision reported in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs. Indusind Bank Limited and others^[1] , wherein it is held that :

¶20

“Order III, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, empowers the holder of power of attorney to “act” on behalf of the principal. In our view the word “acts” employed in Order III, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, confines only in respect of “acts’ done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. The term “acts’

¶21

would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some “acts” in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined”.

¶22

Therefore, from the above, it is clear that the G.P.A. holder can give evidence on behalf of the principal to the facts which are within his knowledge, but he cannot depose in respect of facts within the personal knowledge of principal.

¶23

5. Clarifying the above order, the Revision is disposed of. It is made clear that the G.P.A. holder can give evidence to the facts which are within his knowledge. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

__________________ K.C.BHANU, J.

¶25

March, 11, 2010. DSH

¶26

[1] AIR 2005 S.C. 439.

Gudavalli Sivarama Krishna v. Koneru Rma Thulasamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gudavalli Sivarama Krishna v. Koneru Rma Thulasamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs.Nirmala Kale, W/o.P.R.Kale, Aged 69 Years Vs Sri K.Manohar Augustine

Sanivada Ramu Naidu, Vs The State of a.P., rep SubInspector of Police

The Indigenous Chruches in India Trust Hebron, Vs Sri K.Manohar Agutine

B.Rajender Vs Santhoshi Devi

Bobbili Kondababu Vs Alla Lakshmi

Katkam Rajalingu Vs Puli Venkatesham