2026 INSC 35 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3894 OF 2022

MUSLIMVEETIL CHALAKKAL

AHAMMED HAJI …. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SAKEENA BEEVI ….RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3895 OF 2022

J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

Civil Appeal No(s). 3894 of 2022

1. Heard.

2. The present appeal is directed against the final

judgment and order dated 16

th October, 2020, passed

by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

1 in R.F.A.

No. 267 of 2016, whereby the first appeal preferred

by Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji

2 came to

1

Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.

2

Hereinafter, referred to as the “plaintiff-appellant”.

2

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

be dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree

dated 30

th October, 2015, rendered by the Sub-

Judge, Chavakkad

3 in Original Suit No.862 of 2013,

by which the suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant

seeking specific performance of agreement to sell was

dismissed.

Factual Background

3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant and essential

for the disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.

4. The plaint schedule property admeasuring

approximately three acres thirty-five cents fell to the

share of Shri Buquarayil Valappilakkayil Seethi

Thangal (hereinafter ‘Seethi Thangal’), father of the

respondent–Sakeena Beevi

4, by virtue of a registered

partition deed bearing No. 1274 of 1985, registered in

the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mullassery.

5. Pursuant to the death of Seethi Thangal on 22

nd

August, 2002, the plaint schedule property,

comprised in Survey No. 116/7 of Kundazhiyoor

Desom, together with the school building standing

thereon and all appurtenant improvements,

including ownership and management of the school,

3

Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.

4

Hereinafter, referred to as the “defendant-respondent”.

3

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

devolved upon his nine children , including the

defendant-respondent.

6. All the nine legal heirs of Seethi Thangal

executed an unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4)

in favour of the eldest son, Shri Muhammed Rafi

Thangal, on 3

rd September, 2002. Subsequently, on

4

th September, 2002, the respondent Sakeena Beevi

executed a separate registered power of attorney

(Exh. B1) in favour of her son Shri Rasheeq Ahmed

(DW-1).

7. The eldest brother, namely, Shri Muhammed

Rafi Thangal, executed an agreement for sale (Exh.

A1) dated 14

th May, 2007 in favour of the plaintiff-

appellant for a total consideration of

Rs.2,70,00,000/-. A sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid

as an advance at the time of execution of the

agreement. The date of execution under the

agreement (Exh. A1) was extended on three

occasions, i.e., on 14

th April, 2008 [Exh. A1(a)], 7

th

August, 2010 [Exh. A1(b)], and 7

th July, 2011 [Exh.

A1(c)]. On 14

th November, 2012, the defendant-

respondent caused publication of a newspaper notice

revoking the unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4)

issued in favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal.

4

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

8. On 30

th April, 2013, the defendant-respondent

executed an affidavit (Exh. A5) ratifying the power of

attorney (Exh. A4) and the acts carried out

thereunder, and further expressing her consent to

transfer her share in the plaint schedule property.

Thereafter, on 8

th May, 2013, the remaining eight

siblings executed a sale deed conveying their

collective 10/11

th share in the entire chunk of land

on which the school building exists in favour of the

plaintiff-appellant.

9. As the defendant-respondent refused to execute

the sale deed in respect of her share, the plaintiff-

appellant instituted a suit for specific performance in

the year 2013, which came to be registered as O.S.

No. 862 of 2013 before the trial Court.

10. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment

and decree dated 30

th October, 2015, primarily on the

ground of limitation, and consequently denied the

relief of specific performance as well as the alternate

relief of refund of the advance amount to the plaintiff-

appellant.

11. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff –appellant

preferred an appeal before the High Court, which,

while reversing certain findings recorded by the trial

5

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

Court, ultimately dismissed the suit on the grounds

of lack of readiness and willingness on the part of the

plaintiff-appellant to get the sale deed executed, as

required under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as well

as on the ground of limitation.

12. The High Court held that the plaintiff-appellant

failed to establish his continued readiness and

willingness to perform the contract. It was observed

that the payments made and the endorsements

extending the agreement were obtained only from

Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal, the brother of the

defendant–respondent, who lacked valid authority to

execute and extend the contract after the defendant–

respondent had executed a registered power of

attorney (Exh.B1) in favour of her son Shri Rafeeq

Ahmed (DW-1) thereby, by a deeming fiction,

revoking the earlier unregistered power of attorney.

Consequently, the payments made to Shri

Muhammed Rafi Thangal were held not to be binding

on the defendant–respondent.

13. The High Court further held that the agreement

had become time-barred, observing that the breach

on the part of the plaintiff-appellant occurred on 14

th

July, 2008, whereas the suit came to be instituted in

6

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

the year 2013, well beyond the period of three years

prescribed under Article 54 of the Schedule to the

Limitation Act, 1963.

14. The above judgment of the High Court is the

subject matter of challenge in the present appeal by

way of special leave.

15. It needs to be noted that during the pendency of

the appeal, the parties were referred to mediation;

however, the mediation efforts did not fructify in a

settlement. Further, during the course of the hearing,

Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned senior counsel

appearing for the plaintiff-appellant, on instructions,

offered a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- to the defendant-

respondent, as fair value for her 1/11

th share which

offer was declined outright.

Submissions on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant

16. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned senior counsel

appearing for the plaintiff-appellant urged that

although the plaintiff-appellant could have

relinquished the said 1/11

th share of the defendant-

respondent in plaint schedule property, such a

course would render the functioning of the school

unviable and in breach of the requirements under the

Kerala Education Rules, 1959, which mandates a

7

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

minimum extent of three acres of land for running a

higher secondary school.

17. Shri Agrawal drew the Court’s attention to the

affidavit (Exh. A5) dated 30

th April, 2013 sworn by the

defendant-respondent, whereby the agreement in

favour of the plaintiff–appellant was affirmed and

ratified. The said affidavit (Exh. A5) is an admitted

document and reads as under: -

“I, Mrs. B.V. Sakeena Beevi, aged 59 years,

presently residing at Bukharyil Valapil House,

W/o Fakrudheen Thangal, Bukharayil

Ayittandiyil, Mathilakam Post - 680 685 do hereby

solemnly affirm and state as follows:

That myself one the legal heirs of deceased Mr.

B.V. seethe Thangal, Ex. M.L.A., along with other

legal heirs, had executed a valid power of attorney

in favour of Mr. B.V. Muhammed Raphy Thangal,

residing at Bukharayil Valappil house,

Venkitangu, P.O. Padoor, on 3rd September 2002

regarding the property in Re-Survey No. 116/7 in

Padoor Desam, Situated within the Mullassery

Sub registrar Office. While the Power of Attorney

to various officials including the Assistant

Educational Officer, Mullassery. Now we have

amicably settled all disputes and I hereby

ratify the acts of the said Power of Attorney

Holder Mr. B.V. Muhammed Raphy Thangal. I

have no objection to perform all acts, deeds

and things as assigned in the said Power of

Attorney Holder Mr. B.V. Muhamme d Raphy

Thangal. I have no objection to perform all

acts, deeds and things as assigned in the said

Power of Attorney by me. I do hereby undertake

to carry out the terms and conditions set out in

the said Power of Attorney by me. I do hereby

8

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

undertake to carry out the terms and conditions

set out in the said Power of Attorney and I will be

personally bound by the terms and also I will be

personally present whenever necessary. I have no

objections in changing management involving

ownership of Aleemul Islam Higher Secondary

School, and ownership of properties of the

above said school, in favour of Mr. Ahammed

Haji, S/o Moidunni, Muslim Veettil Chalakkal

House, Kundaliyoor desom, Engandiyoor

amsom, as already submitted through my

power of attorney holder.

What is stated above is true to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

Dated this the 30th day of April, 2013.”

[Emphasis supplied]

18. Shri Agrawal contended that once the

defendant–respondent had agreed to the terms of the

transaction and expressly conveyed her no-objection

for transfer of ownership of the plaint schedule

property through her power of attorney holder Shri

Muhammed Rafi Thangal, the power of attorney

executed (Exh. A4) in his favour, by necessary

implication, stood ratified and reaffirmed, and the

acts performed by the said power of attorney holder

could not thereafter be questioned or doubted in a

Court of law. He further urged that the findings

recorded by the trial Court as well as the High Court,

holding that the unregistered power of attorney (Exh.

A4) executed by the defendant-respondent in favour

9

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

of her brother, Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal, stood

revoked with effect from 4

th September, 2002, are

contrary to the material available on record and

suffer from manifest error.

19. He further drew the Court’s attention to the

written statement filed by the defendant–respondent,

wherein the validity of the agreement was expressly

admitted, and the only objection raised pertained to

limitation. It was pointed out that in the written

statement, the defendant–respondent admitted that

the agreement dated 14

th May, 2007 (Exh.A1), was

negotiated on her behalf by her son, Shri Rasheeq

Ahmed, acting as her power of attorney holder. It was

reiterated by learned senior counsel that the

subsequent acts performed by Shri Muhammed Rafi

Thangal were duly and expressly ratified by the

defendant–respondent.

20. He further submitted that in the entire written

statement, the defendant–respondent did not deny or

dispute the affidavit (Exh. A5) dated 30

th April, 2013,

affirming her ratification of all the acts done by Shri

Muhammed Rafi Thangal in furtherance of the

unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4).

10

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

21. Shri Agrawal also pointed out that the stand

taken by the defendant –respondent that the

unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4) executed in

favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi stood revoked on 4

th

September, 2002 upon execution of the registered

power of attorney (Exh. B1) in favour of her son Shri

Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1), is belied by the fact that she

herself affirmed validity of the agreement (Exh. A1)

dated 14

th May, 2007 which was executed by Shri

Muhammed Rafi Thangal on strength of the disputed

unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4).

Furthermore, she issued a notice dated 10

th

November, 2012 to Shri Muhammed Rafi and the

educational authorities, for the first time, expressing

her intent to revoke the said unregistered power of

attorney (Exh. A4).

22. He further submitted that the trial Court had

affirmed the evidentiary value of the affidavit (Exh.A5)

by treating it as an admission of the defendant–

respondent, but thereafter proceeded to discard the

said document on the basis of the testimony of Shri

Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1), the son of the defendant-

respondent. It was urged that if the defendant–

respondent had any intention to prove revocation of

11

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

the power of attorney executed in favour of Shri

Muhammed Rafi Thangal (Exh. A4) or to disown the

affidavit (Exh. A5), she ought to have stepped into the

witness box herself. However, admittedly, the

defendant–respondent did not enter the witness box

during the trial.

23. He, therefore, urged that it is a fit case wherein

this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under

Article 136 of the Constitution of India for balancing

the equites by setting aside the impugned judgment

and directing the specific performance of the

agreement to the extent of the 1/11

th share of the

respondent-defendant.

Submissions on behalf of the defendant-

respondent

24. Per contra, Ms. Menaka Guruswamy, learned

senior counsel appearing for the defendant –

respondent, vehemently and fervently opposed the

submissions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff–

appellant. She submitted that the power of attorney

(Exh. A4) executed in favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi

Thangal was an unregistered document, whereas the

power of attorney executed (Exh. B1) in favour of Shri

Rasheeq Ahmed (DW -1), the son of the defendant–

12

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

respondent, was a registered instrument. It was

contended that upon execution of the registered

power of attorney (Exh. B1), the earlier unregistered

power of attorney (Exh. A4) stood automatically

revoked.

25. Without prejudice to the above, she further

contended that the unregistered power of attorney

(Exh. A4) executed by the defendant-respondent in

favour of her brother, Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal,

did not authorise him to convey the plaint schedule

property to any third party without the express

consent of the executant, and, therefore, the

defendant–respondent could not be bound by the

acts undertaken by Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal

acting under the unregistered power of attorney (Exh.

A4). It was further submitted that the original

agreement (Exh. A1) inter se the parties, bearing the

endorsement of Shri Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1), the son

of the defendant–respondent and her power of

attorney, was executed on 14

th May, 2007, and only

a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid as advance at the

time of its execution. It was urged that the suit came

to be instituted in the year 2013 and was thus clearly

13

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

barred by limitation in view of the Article 54 of

Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.

26. She further submitted that the affidavit (Exh.

A5) was executed solely with a view to facilitating the

continued functioning of the school and not for the

purpose of transferring the share of the defendant-

respondent in the suit property. It was contended

that the said document was, therefore, rightly not

relied upon by the trial Court as well as the High

Court in favour of the plaintiff–appellant. She further

submitted that the defendant–respondent is willing to

make a counter offer to purchase the entire property

for a consideration of Rs.3 crores, being the amount

originally stipulated under the agreement (Exh. A1).

27. She, therefore, urged that this Court ought not

to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts

recorded by the trial Court and the High Court,

whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant

was dismissed.

Discussion and Analysis

28. We have given our thoughtful consideration to

the submissions advanced at bar and have gone

through the material available on record.

14

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

29. At the outset, it may be noted that the plaint

schedule 1/11

th share of the defendant-respondent

forms part of a larger tract of land admeasuring three

acres thirty-five cents originally owned by her late

father Shri Seethi Thangal. A school was built on the

entire three acres area and is presently being run by

the plaintiff-appellant.

30. The plaintiff-appellant has consistently asserted

that, having regard to the requirements of the Kerala

Education Rules, 1959, the campus of a higher

secondary school cannot be reduced below three

acres and, but for such statutory constraint, he

would have conveniently given up the claim for the

1/11

th share of the defendant-respondent in the

plaint schedule property.

31. It is further a matter of record that during the

course of hearing of the appeal, this Court made

efforts to facilitate a settlement through mediation,

and the plaintiff-appellant offered a handsome

amount of Rs.75 lakhs to the defendant-respondent.

However, the said offer was point-blank refused by

the defendant-respondent, who seems to have been

overcome by greed owing to the difficulty faced by the

plaintiff-appellant who would risk losing the right to

15

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

operate the school in case the land area is reduced to

less than three acres.

32. It is in this background that we shall now

proceed to examine the material available on record

to determine whether the view taken by the High

Court in affirming the rejection of the suit by the trial

Court is justified.

33. The High Court dismissed the suit primarily on

two grounds, namely: -

(i) The failure of the plaintiff-appellant to

establish readiness and willingness to

perform his obligations under the contract

(Exh.A-1);

(ii) limitation.

34. On the first aspect, it may be noted that the

factum of three extensions dated 14

th April, 2008

(executed by all nine co-sharers); 7

th August, 2010

and 7

th July, 2011(executed by the power of attorney

holder, Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal), stands duly

proved by the plaintiff-appellant through

unimpeachable and credible evidence. It was only on

14

th November, 2012, that the defendant-respondent,

for the first time, caused publication of a newspaper

notice purporting to revoke the power of attorney

16

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

executed in favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal.

Furthermore, the defendant-respondent does not

even dispute the validity of the agreement (Exh. A1)

dated 14

th May, 2007 which was executed by Shri

Muhammed Rafi Thangal acting on the unregistered

power of attorney (Exh. A4). In this backdrop, the

theory projected by the respondent that the power of

attorney executed by her in favour of Shri

Muhammed Rafi Thangal stood revoked as far back

as the year 2002 is ex facie untenable and contrary

to the record.

35. The most crucial and vital document, which, in

our considered view, tilts the balance in favour of the

plaintiff-appellant, is the affidavit (Exh. A5) executed

by the defendant on 30

th April, 2013. The execution

of the said affidavit (Exh. A5) was neither disputed

nor denied by the defendant –respondent, who

admittedly did not enter the witness box in the suit

proceedings. Instead, her son Shri Rasheeq Ahmed

alone was examined as DW-1. A plain reading of the

affidavit, particularly the highlighted portions (supra)

thereof, clearly establish that the defendant–

respondent not only ratified the acts performed by

the power of attorney holder, her brother Shri

17

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

Muhammed Rafi Thangal, but also expressly

conveyed her no -objection to the change in

management and so also the ownership of the school

and the properties appurtenant thereto in favour of

the plaintiff-appellant. Once the two facts, i.e., the

publication of notice in the year 2012 for revocation

of the unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4) and

the affidavit dated 30

th April, 2013 are cumulatively

taken into account, manifestly, limitation would start

running from the later date because it is, at that

stage, that the respondent-defendant finally refused

execution of sale deed to the extent of her share in

the suit property.

36. In this backdrop, we are of the firm view that

the issue of limitation was erroneously decided by the

trial Court as well as the High Court, leading to an

unjustified rejection of the suit instituted by the

appellant.

37. As the execution of the affidavit (Exh. A5) is not

in dispute, the period of limitation would commence

from the said date, i.e., 30

th April, 2013. We have no

hesitation in holding that the suit was instituted

within the prescribed period of limitation, reckoned

from the date of the affidavit. The said affidavit (Exh.

18

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

A5) not only ratifies the acts performed by the power

of attorney holder Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal but

also records the unequivocal no-objection of the

executant–defendant to transfer the ownership of the

property in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.

38. There is no dispute that pursuant to the last

extension, the plaintiff-appellant paid the remaining

sale consideration which was accepted by eight co-

sharers of the defendant-respondent and the partial

sale deed to that extent, stood executed in his favour

on 8

th May, 2013. Thus, the issue of readiness and

willingness was also wrongly decided against the

plaintiff-appellant and in favour of the defendant-

respondent.

39. In this background, we are of the firm opinion

that the High Court committed grave error in the

facts as well as in law in dismissing the appeal suit

filed by the plaintiff-appellant and affirming the

judgment of the trial Court.

40. The impugned judgments do not stand to

scrutiny and are hereby set aside.

41. The plaintiff-appellant is held entitled to

conveyance of the 1/11

th share of the defendant–

respondent in the plaint schedule property. The trial

19

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

Court shall determine the balance sale consideration

payable to the defendant-respondent, having regard

to the original consideration stipulated in the

principal agreement for sale (Exh. A1), and shall

apply simple interest at the rate of 9% thereon. The

appellant shall deposit the said amount before the

trial Court within a period of two months from the

date of such determination, whereupon a registered

sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property

shall be executed in favour of the appellant.

42. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs.

43. Decree be prepared accordingly.

44. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3895 OF 2022

45. This appeal is preferred against the interim

order dated 19

th November, 2021 passed by the High

Court in Writ Appeal No.1425 of 2021.

46. The writ appeal was preferred by defendant-

respondent Sakeena Beevi through her power of

attorney holder Shri Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1),

assailing the order dated 11

th October, 2021 passed

by the learned Single Judge. By the said order,

learned Single Judge upheld the decision of the

20

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

Director of Public Instruction (DPI) rejecting the

representation preferred by the writ petitioner

against the proposed assignment of the ownership

and management of Aleemul Islam Higher Secondary

School, Padoor to the plaintiff-appellant (respondent

No. 3 before the High Court). Accordingly, the writ

petition was dismissed and the order of the DPI was

affirmed.

47. The writ petitioner alleged that since she had

not agreed to sell her share from the joint family land

on which the school existed, the total land area of the

school fell below 3 acres mandatorily required to

operate a higher secondary school as per Rule 5A

Chapter 3 of the Kerala Education Rules, 2005. The

DPI, however, rejected the representation of the writ

petitioner. As stated above, the writ petition also

came to be rejected.

48. During the pendency of the writ appeal, the

District Education Officer (DEO), Chavakkad, by

order dated 15

th November, 2021 recognised the

plaintiff-appellant as the Manager of the school w.e.f.

3

rd September, 2019.

49. The Division Bench stayed the effective

operation of the order of learned Single Judge dated

21

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

11

th October, 2021 and also the order dated 15

th

November, 2021 passed by the DEO during pendency

of the writ appeal. Consequently, the management of

the school was directed to be vested with the DEO,

Chavakkad. While providing for this interim

arrangement, the Division Bench directed the DEO to

discharge the functions of the Manager on the joint

instructions of the writ petitioner and the plaintiff-

appellant.

50. Learned counsel representing the State of

Kerala vehemently and fervently contended that

looking to the disputes pending between the parties

pertaining to 1/11

th share of the defendant (writ

appellant) in the suit schedule property, the High

Court, rightly passed the impugned order making an

interim arrangement for management of the school

so that the functioning thereof would not suffer. He

urged that as the DEO has been ordered to act under

the instructions of the writ petitioner as well as the

plaintiff-appellant herein, no prejudice would be

caused to any of the parties in continuing such

arrangement.

51. By way of judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.

3894 of 2022, we have granted the decree of specific

22

C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022

performance in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. In

view of the above decision, manifestly, the plaintiff-

appellant would have available to him the full tract of

3 acres land for running the school as required under

the Kerala Education Rules, 2005.

52. Hence, there is no further requirement of

continuing the interim arrangement as directed by

the High Court by the impugned order.

53. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19

th

November, 2021 passed by the High Court is set

aside.

54. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs.

55. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

….……………………J.

(VIKRAM NATH )

...…………………….J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 07, 2026.