S. Padmavathamma Vs. S. Sudha Rani and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of attorney as witness on her behalf - respondent objected to it - power of attorney not a substitutive for his principal and cannot speak about facts which are not within his knowledge - held, general power of attorney holder can appear as witness only in his personal capacity but cannot appear as witness on behalf of plaintiff in capacity of plaintiff. - maximssections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [v.v.s. rao, n.v. ramana & p.s. narayana, jj] ghee as a live stock product held, [per v.v.s. rao & n.v. ramana, jj - majority] since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. the first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. the shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. by simmering unsalted butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. so to say, milk is converted to dahi, then butter. scientifically or common sense point of..........of the plaintiff, in the capacity of the plaintiff.2. the order under revision cannot be said to be erroneous because the power of attorney can speak about the facts which are within his personal knowledge. since, the power of attorney is not a substitute for a party, he cannot speak about the facts which are exclusively within the knowledge of the party concerned, who is his 'principal'. in respect of the facts within his or her personal knowledge, it is the concerned party i.e., 'the principal', that can be speak. in respect of such matters the evidence of the general power of attorney of the party, would be hearsay and so is not admissible in evidence. a general power of attorney of such party, merely because of such power would not become a substitute to the party and so he is incompetent to depose about the facts which are within the exclusive personal knowledge of the party. therefore, the trial court holding that a power of attorney is not a substitutive for his principal, and cannot speak about the facts which are within the personal knowledge of the party, needs no interference.3. with the above observation, the revision petition is disposed of. no costs.

Judgment:

ORDER

C.Y. Somayajulu, J.

1. When the revision petitioner, who is the plaintiff in OS No. 82 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool, wanted to examine her General Power of Attorney as a witness on her behalf, an objection was taken by the respondents, who are the defendants in the suit, that General Power of Attorney cannot give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff revision petitioner. By the order under revision, on the basis of the said objection, the Trial Court held that General Power of Attorney holder can appear as a witness only in his personal capacity but cannot appear as witness on behalf of the plaintiff, in the capacity of the plaintiff.

2. The order under revision cannot be said to be erroneous because the Power of Attorney can speak about the facts which are within his personal knowledge. Since, the Power of Attorney is not a substitute for a party, he cannot speak about the facts which are exclusively within the knowledge of the party concerned, who is his 'principal'. In respect of the facts within his or her personal knowledge, it is the concerned party i.e., 'the principal', that can be speak. In respect of such matters the evidence of the General Power of Attorney of the party, would be hearsay and so is not admissible in evidence. A General Power of Attorney of such party, merely because of such power would not become a substitute to the party and so he is incompetent to depose about the facts which are within the exclusive personal knowledge of the party. Therefore, the Trial Court holding that a Power of Attorney is not a substitutive for his principal, and cannot speak about the facts which are within the personal knowledge of the party, needs no interference.

3. With the above observation, the revision petition is disposed of. No costs.