An NRI in the US Let His Brother Sell His Madurai Land Under a POA. He Sued the Brother's Widow in 2011. The Madras High Court Said He Waited Too Long.

An owner who went to the USA in 1986 gave his brother a registered power of attorney in 1998. The brother sold the owner's Madurai properties in 2002, 2004 and 2006 and died in 2008. In 2011 the owner sued the brother's widow and son for Rs 2,47,04,020. On 25 September 2026 the Madras High Court at Madurai upheld the dismissal of that suit: the owner knew of the sales, did not sue within three years, and could not prove the heirs held his money.

The case

The appeal is A.S.(MD) No. 73 of 2018, P.A. Jaswant Babu v. P.A.B. Sri Lakshmi and another, before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. It was heard by G.R. Swaminathan and R. Poornima, JJ., reserved on 17 June 2026 and pronounced on 25 September 2026. G.R. Swaminathan, J. wrote the judgment. It runs to 27 pages and the PDF carries no neutral citation. The appeal was from O.S. No. 20 of 2011, dismissed by the VI Additional District Court, Madurai on 30 November 2017.

What happened

The facts are at paragraphs 2, 15, 19 and 20:

• The owner went to the USA in 1986 and works there. He gave a power of attorney to his father on 5 August 1986.
• After the father died, he executed a registered power of attorney in favour of his brother on 12 March 1998 to manage his properties.
• The brother sold three properties by sale deeds of 27 February 2002, three more on 31 March 2004 and one on 2 August 2004, and further properties by deeds of 7 and 8 March 2006.
• The brother died on 13 June 2008. The owner sent a legal notice on 2 November 2010 and filed the suit on 25 February 2011 against the widow and son.
• He worked out Rs 1,47,18,233 as due, from income tax returns, and added 12% interest to reach Rs 2,47,04,020.

Paragraph 19 records that the power of attorney "explicitly authorised" the brother to sell and receive the price without prior permission, and to operate the bank accounts. The court described it as broad in its terms.

What the court held

The suit was time-barred. The owner conceded he learned of the 2002 sales in December 2003 and of the 2004 sales in 2004, on his visits to Madurai (paragraphs 20 and 21). A suit over an agent's misconduct falls under Article 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and must be filed within three years of the owner learning of it (paragraphs 21 and 22). On the 2006 sales, the owner said nothing about when he learned of them. The court held: "Since the sale consideration was deposited in the plaintiff's bank account, knowledge has to be imputed to him" (paragraph 22).

Silence counted against him. Between learning of the sales and his brother's death, the owner made no claim and did not demand accounts in his e-mails (paragraphs 21 and 24). Paragraph 23: the owner "cannot like Rip van winkle, suddenly remember his right to seek accounts" and sue in 2011.

The money had reached his own account. The owner admitted in cross-examination that the buyers paid by demand drafts in his name, deposited in his bank account (paragraphs 15 and 25). His case then became that the brother withdrew the money later. The court held this "a different case altogether" and said the foundation of the claim was undermined (paragraph 25).

The heirs of a dead attorney carry less. Paragraph 18 sets out four principles:

1. When the attorney's liability is established, his heirs are liable only to the extent of the estate they inherited from him.
2. Where the owner sues the attorney, the attorney must produce and explain the accounts. Where the owner sues the heirs, the owner must prove the sum due. The heirs only produce the papers they hold.
3. As a rule, a money decree against an attorney needs a settlement of accounts first.
4. Without a settlement, the owner should sue for accounts, and the court may dismiss a plain money suit.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs (paragraph 28).

What it means for an NRI owner

The court's own findings point at three facts in this record: the owner knew of the sales, the price reached his own bank account, and he waited until after his brother's death to sue. Each counted against him.

A broad power of attorney to a family member lets that person sell and bank the price without asking. Our guides on power of attorney misuse and revoking a power of attorney from abroad cover the drafting limits and the revocation route. For owners in the US, the US power of attorney guide covers the execution steps.

This judgment turned on its facts and the owner's own admissions. A specific dispute over a family attorney's sales belongs with a lawyer who can read the deed, the bank record and the dates.

FAQ

Can an NRI recover sale proceeds from the heirs of a dead power of attorney holder? The Madras High Court held on 25 September 2026 that the heirs are liable only to the extent of the estate they inherited from the attorney, and that the owner must prove the sum due. In this case the claim failed.

How long does an owner have to sue an attorney for misconduct? The court applied Article 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963: three years from when the misconduct became known to the owner.

Does the clock wait until the attorney dies? Not on these facts. The owner argued limitation ran from the brother's death in 2008. The court counted from when he learned of the sales, which was December 2003 for the 2002 sales and 2004 for the 2004 sales.

What if the sale money was paid into the owner's own account? The court held that knowledge of the 2006 sales had to be imputed to the owner because the price was deposited in his own bank account.

Do the heirs have to explain the attorney's accounts? No. Paragraph 9 says the heirs are not obliged to explain the accounts. Their role is to hand over the records they hold.

66 MG Road newsdesk

Sources

• P.A. Jaswant Babu v. P.A.B. Sri Lakshmi and another, A.S.(MD) No. 73 of 2018 with C.M.P.(MD) No. 4150 of 2018, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, G.R. Swaminathan and R. Poornima JJ, reserved 17 June 2026, pronounced 25 September 2026, 27 pages. The court's own PDF was downloaded on 27 September 2026, 343,490 bytes, sha256 feff9748c0eecc1cba1ab75d9fbe8a2a9d9656e59a6a2170c0b6118eceb9279d, and read in full: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/2107021
• The PDF carries no neutral citation and no CNR, so none is given here.
• The claim of Rs 1,47,18,233 is the figure at paragraphs 2 and 15. The table at paragraph 26 totals Rs 1,47,18,223, though its five items add to Rs 1,47,18,233. We use the figure the items and the text support.