The Rajasthan High Court, in a recent judgment, has reaffirmed a crucial principle of contract law, holding that a power of attorney automatically terminates upon the death of the principal. Consequently, any sale of property executed by the power of attorney holder after the principal’s demise is void.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a land mutation entry, thereby upholding the decisions of the Board of Revenue, the Divisional Commissioner, and the Tehsildar. The core issue before the court was the validity of a sale deed executed on behalf of a person who had already died.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned agricultural land originally co-owned by five sons of Heera, namely Onkar, Rama, Sukhdeo, Suwa, and Panchu, with each holding an equal 1/5th share. On September 22, 1988, all five brothers jointly executed a registered power of attorney in favour of one Chandi Ram.
Subsequently, one of the brothers, Panchu, passed away on April 16, 1990.
Over five years after Panchu’s death, on June 9, 1995, the power of attorney holder, Chandi Ram, sold the entire parcel of land to Sharda Devi and Nirmala Devi through a registered sale deed. These individuals later sold the same land to the petitioner, Smt. Kamla Khinchi, on February 22, 2006. Based on this final sale deed, the land mutation was entered in Smt. Kamla Khinchi’s name.
The legal heirs of the deceased Panchu (led by his wife, Smt. Kamla) initiated proceedings by filing an application under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, before the Tehsildar, seeking correction of the revenue entries. The Tehsildar, on December 14, 2017, allowed the application and corrected the mutation. The petitioner’s subsequent appeals to the Divisional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were dismissed on December 7, 2021, and January 14, 2025, respectively, leading to the present writ petition before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner, represented by Mr. Sanjay Mehrish, argued that the Tehsildar had changed the mutation entries without issuing a mandatory show-cause notice, in violation of Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the respondents should have approached a Civil Court to seek cancellation of the sale deed or filed a suit before a Revenue Court under Section 188 of the Act, and that the application for correction of entries was not maintainable.
In opposition, the respondents, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. R.K. Agarwal, argued that the sale deed was void to the extent of Panchu’s 1/5th share. They submitted that since Panchu had died in 1990, the power of attorney he executed had terminated. Therefore, Chandi Ram had no legal authority to sell his share in 1995. The counsel cited Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which states that an agency is terminated by the death of the principal. They argued that because the mutation in the petitioner’s favour was based on a sale deed executed on behalf of a dead person, the Tehsildar’s order correcting the entry was valid, even in the absence of a show-cause notice.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Dhand, after perusing the record and hearing the arguments, found no merit in the petitioner’s case. The court noted the undisputed fact that Panchu had expired on April 16, 1990, nearly five years before the power of attorney holder executed the sale deed.
The High Court affirmed the findings of the lower appellate courts, stating that they correctly concluded that “the 1/5 share of the Panchu could not have been sold by power of attorney-Chandi Ram, after five years of his death.”
In its concluding remarks, the court laid down the definitive legal position: “It is the settled proposition of law that after death of an individual, the execution of power attorney of such individual comes to an end automatically in terms of Section 201 of the Act of 1872, hence, under these circumstances, the revenue entries made in favour of the petitioner were not tenable and the same has been rightly quashed by the Tehsildar.”
Finding no error in the impugned orders, the court dismissed the writ petition. However, it clarified that the observations made in the judgment would not prejudice the petitioner if she chose to pursue any other legal remedy available to her.
