SHYAM KUMAR INANI [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. VINOD AGRAWAL & ORS. [RESPONDENT(S)]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2845/2015
(2JB, VIKRAM NATH and PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA JJ., delivered by VIKRAM NATH, J.)
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified an important principle regarding the role of a power of attorney holder in testifying on behalf of a principal, especially in cases involving multiple plaintiffs. The bench, consisting of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, addressed whether a power of attorney holder, who is also a vendee and plaintiff, can testify on behalf of another plaintiff on matters requiring personal knowledge.
The case in question involved an agreement to sell, where the power of attorney holder, K.D. Maheshwari, was one of the vendees and a plaintiff himself. He had witnessed the execution of the sale agreement and possessed first-hand knowledge of the transaction. The court noted that because he had personally observed the execution of the agreement, Maheshwari was in a position to testify about matters involving personal knowledge of the principal. This includes the principal’s intent, readiness, and willingness to fulfill contractual obligations, typically matters that would require the principal’s own testimony.
The court emphasized the general rule that while an attorney holder may testify regarding actions they have performed on behalf of the principal, they cannot provide testimony on matters requiring the principal’s subjective understanding, such as state of mind or contractual readiness. This principle is well-rooted in legal practice, maintaining that an attorney cannot depose on matters beyond their direct involvement or awareness.
However, in this case, the court distinguished the rule by recognizing that Maheshwari’s position as both an attorney holder and a plaintiff allowed him to possess personal knowledge of the agreement’s execution. His presence and involvement in the transactions across multiple suits, all occurring at the same time and place, meant he was personally aware of all relevant facts. Justice Vikram Nath’s judgment reasoned that, under these circumstances, the deposition of Maheshwari as a witness for the plaintiff could not be contested. His role in the transactions qualified him to testify on issues typically requiring the principal’s own knowledge, as he was directly involved in and aware of the details of the transaction.
The Supreme Court also referenced the landmark judgment in Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha to substantiate this distinction. In Man Kaur, the Court affirmed that while a power of attorney holder can indeed testify regarding actions they have personally undertaken on behalf of the principal, they are restricted from deposing on matters demanding the principal’s personal insight or intent. The Court noted that in Maheshwari’s case, these limitations did not apply since he was a direct party to the transaction and thus had first-hand knowledge of the events surrounding the agreement’s execution.
This ruling reinforces the nuanced role of a power of attorney holder in litigation, especially when they are also plaintiffs with vested interests in the outcome. It provides guidance for interpreting the capacity in which an attorney holder may testify, considering both their legal role and personal involvement in the matter.
