Skip to content


Ganapati Nana Powar Vs. Jivanabai Subanna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Apeal No. 705 of 1921
Judge
Reported in(1922)24BOMLR1302; 76Ind.Cas.34
AppellantGanapati Nana Powar
RespondentJivanabai Subanna
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....power of attorney-irregularity in filing a suit under such power-practice-proeedure.;the respondent filed a suit through her mukhtyar to recover possession of land from the appellants. the appellants contended that the power of attorney, on the strength of which the suit was filed, was a special power of attorney and not a general power of attorney as required by the high court rule amending order iii, rule 2, clause (a). the lower courts having overruled this objection :-;confirming the decree of the lower courts, that the objection as to the power of attorney was covered by section 99 of the code of civil procedure.;charles palmer v. sorabji jamshedji (1886) p.j. 63, followed. - .....of attorney, on the strength of which the suit was filed, is a special power of attorney and not a general power of attorney within the meaning of the rule as framed by this court, which is as follows :-the recognized agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are persona holding general powers-of-attorney from parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties.2. we are by no means clear in this case that the words used in the power of attorney are not sufficient to constitute it a valid general power of attorney. but assuming in favour of the.....
Judgment:

Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.

1. The only point urged in support of this appeal is that the power of attorney, on the strength of which the suit was filed, is a special power of attorney and not a general power of attorney within the meaning of the rule as framed by this Court, which is as follows :-

The recognized agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are persona holding general powers-of-attorney from parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties.

2. We are by no means clear in this case that the words used in the power of attorney are not sufficient to constitute it a valid general power of attorney. But assuming in favour of the appellants that the words are not sufficient to constitute it a general power of attorney, the objection is covered by Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and as it is an error, defect of irregularity in the proceedings in the suit not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of this Court, we do not think that we would be justified in disturbing the decree appealed from on that ground. The decision of this Court in Charles Palmer v. Sorabji Jamshedji (1886) P.J. 63 which related to Section 578 in the Code of 1882, corresponding to Section 99 of the present Code, supports this view. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //