9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of power of attorney for filing a suit on behalf of a plaintiff residing abroad. 2. Admissibility of the power of attorney in evidence under Section 85 of the Evidence Act. 3. Authority of the attorney to compromise the appeal on behalf of the plaintiff. 4. Consideration of the compromise in light of the minor appellant's benefit. Analysis: 1. The case involves a defendant's appeal where the defendants, brothers of the plaintiff residing in Dutch Guiana, challenged a suit filed by another brother on behalf of the plaintiff for possession of his share in the family property. The suit was decreed by the lower Courts, leading to this second appeal. 2. During the appeal, the appellants presented a compromise executed by an attorney claiming to represent the plaintiff. The authenticity of the power of attorney was challenged by one of the brothers, Shahabuddin, who objected to the compromise. However, the power of attorney was duly verified, and the court noted that under Section 85 of the Evidence Act, a document authenticated by a notary public enjoys a presumption of validity unless rebutted. 3. The court examined the terms of the power of attorney and found that it granted the attorney broad authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff in all matters except property sale, mortgage, or transfer. As such, the attorney was deemed authorized to compromise the appeal on behalf of the plaintiff. Additionally, it was highlighted that the compromise was for the benefit of a minor appellant, as confirmed by the lower Court. 4. Consequently, the court ruled that the appeal must be decided based on the compromise presented, thereby ordering in favor of the compromise. The judgment also specified that costs would be borne by the parties involved, bringing a conclusion to the legal proceedings in this matter.
|
