# POA Holder's Sale: SC Sends Owner's Suit to Trial By Saurabh Garg, founder·7 min read·Published 2026-09-25 **Short answer:** On 21 September 2026 the Supreme Court sent back to trial a Kerala owner's suit against a 2005 sale of his farmland by his power-of-attorney holder. Three lower courts had cut the case short on limitation. The Court held that once the trial on all issues had begun, limitation could no longer be split off and tried first, and it left open whether the sale was valid and which limitation period applies. The Munsiff Court, Kottarakara was asked to decide the suit within three months. # An Owner's Suit Against His POA Holder's Sale Goes Back to Trial, the Supreme Court Said on 21 September **A Kerala landowner gave a general power of attorney to manage his farmland in May 2005. Four days later the holder sold the land. The owner sued in 2013, and three courts disposed of the case on limitation without a full trial. On 21 September 2026 the Supreme Court set all three decisions aside and sent the suit back for trial on every issue. It did not decide whether the sale was valid.** ## The case The judgment is *John Mathew v. Santha Paul & Others*, a civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 34086 of 2025, 2026 INSC 1020, decided by K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli JJ. Arun Palli J wrote it. It was signed at New Delhi on 21 September 2026, runs to 36 pages and is marked **reportable**. John Mathew is the buyer. The respondents are the heirs of the owner, T. Oommen Panicker, who has died. The facts, as the owner pleaded them, are at paragraphs 3 and 4: - On 21 May 2005 the owner executed a general power of attorney in favour of Biju John, to manage his agricultural land in Kottarakara and improve it. - The owner's case was that the power let the holder sign a sale deed or gift deed the owner was already obliged to execute. It did not let him settle the terms of a sale or convey the land. - On 25 May 2005 the holder sold the land to John Mathew by Sale Deed No. 1663/2005 at the Additional Sub Registry, Kottarakara. - The owner revoked the power by registered notice on 20 July 2009, after the holder failed to account for his management. The holder replied that the land had been sold in 2005. - The plaint gives 22 May 2009 as the date the owner came to know of the sale. The holder's answer, at paragraph 5, was that the sale had the owner's consent and that he paid the owner Rs 4,00,000 with no receipt, because the two were on cordial terms. The buyer said the suit was time-barred. None of this has been tried. ## How the courts below ruled The owner filed O.S. No. 337 of 2013 in the Munsiff Court, Kottarakara on 10 June 2013, asking the court to declare the sale deed void and return possession. Issues were framed on 8 July 2015, and limitation was Issue 5. By 2018 the owner had finished his evidence and the defendants had begun theirs. On 17 September 2018 the buyer applied to have limitation tried first. The trial court agreed and, on 3 November 2018, dismissed the suit as filed more than three years after the owner's pleaded date of knowledge, under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The appellate court, on 29 January 2024, upheld that result but recast it as a rejection of the plaint. The Kerala High Court, on 24 September 2025, reversed both. It held that a void deed need not be set aside, applied the twelve-year period in Article 65, and found the suit in time. ## What the court held The question was one of procedure: when a civil court may try one issue before the rest under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A mixed question cannot go first. Paragraph 19: "What matters is whether adjudication of disputed facts is necessary before the legal issue can be answered." Limitation can be tried first only where it turns on admitted facts. The window closes once trial begins. Paragraph 28: "Framing all issues does not exhaust the discretion under Order XIV Rule 2(2); embarking upon their trial does." The rule allows "a prospective ordering of trial", not a reordering of a trial already underway. Applied here. Paragraph 47 records that the owner had completed his evidence and the defendants had entered upon theirs. Limitation was already part of a composite trial and could not be split off in 2018. Nothing on the merits. Paragraph 46: which article of the Limitation Act applies, "the legal character of the impugned transaction", and the answer on limitation "must, therefore, remain entirely open." The High Court's observations on those points cannot govern the trial. The order, at paragraphs 48 to 50: the trial court order, the appellate judgment and the High Court decision are set aside. The buyer's 2018 application is dismissed. The suit is restored to the Munsiff Court, Kottarakara, which is asked to decide it within three months of receiving the judgment. The stay of 8 December 2025 is vacated. No order as to costs. ## What it means for an NRI owner Nothing in the judgment says the owner lived abroad. The pattern will still be familiar to an NRI family: a power given to someone close to look after land, a sale the owner says he never agreed to, and a discovery years later. In this case the sale took place in 2005, and more than twenty years later no court has yet decided whether the power allowed it. The judgment shows how a challenge of this kind can turn on disputed facts: what the power permitted, and whether the sale is void or only voidable. It holds that a trial court cannot cut such a suit short on limitation once the full trial is under way. It does not say the sale was invalid, and it does not say which limitation period applies. For what a general power can and cannot do on a transfer, read our guide on [whether a general POA can transfer property title](/guides/can-general-poa-transfer-property-title-india). For warning signs and remedies, see [power of attorney misuse](/guides/power-of-attorney-misuse-nri), and for ending a power from abroad, [how to revoke a power of attorney](/guides/revoke-power-of-attorney-from-abroad). A dispute over a specific sale belongs with a lawyer who can read the power and the deed. ## FAQ **Did the Supreme Court hold the POA holder's sale void?** No. Paragraph 46 leaves the legal character of the sale open for the trial, and paragraph 51 says the judgment is not an expression of opinion on the merits. **Which limitation period applies to a suit against a POA holder's sale?** The Court did not decide. The trial court applied the three-year period in Article 59 and the High Court applied the twelve-year period in Article 65. The Supreme Court set both findings aside and left the question to the trial. **Can a court still try limitation first after issues are framed?** Yes, if it orders that before the trial of the issues begins and the question is one of law only. Paragraph 28 says framing all issues does not end that power; starting their trial does. **Is this the Supreme Court's final word on POA sales?** No. The judgment is about civil procedure under Order XIV Rule 2. It sets no rule on when a sale by a power-of-attorney holder is valid, and paragraph 51 says it expresses no opinion on the merits. **What happens next in this case?** The suit goes back to the Munsiff Court, Kottarakara, which resumes from the stage before the 2018 application and is asked to decide it within three months of receiving the judgment. *66 MG Road newsdesk* ## Sources - *John Mathew v. Santha Paul & Others*, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 34086 of 2025, 2026 INSC 1020, Supreme Court of India, K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli JJ, 21 September 2026, 36 pages, reportable. The Court's own signed PDF was downloaded by our desk on 25 September 2026, 606,043 bytes, sha256 3f4a94421be4dbf09cd2e921b76b204966aca05518d706fb8a9c4aa84b563102, and read in full: [https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/65391/65391_2025_13_1501_74475_Judgement_21-Sep-2026.pdf](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/65391/65391_2025_13_1501_74475_Judgement_21-Sep-2026.pdf) - The lower-court decisions (Munsiff Court, Kottarakara, 3 November 2018; A.S. No. 23 of 2020, 29 January 2024; Kerala High Court, 24 September 2025) are as the judgment above describes them. We did not open those orders ourselves. About the author: [Saurabh Garg](/about) Saurabh Garg has run the venture studio C4E for twenty years. He founded 66 MG Road in 2026, reads every proposal request, and replies within one business day. [saurabhgarg.com](https://saurabhgarg.com) · [@saurabh](https://x.com/saurabh) · [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/saurabhgarg) Information on this page is as on 2026-09-25. Rules, rates, deadlines and government portals change without notice, so verify against the official source before you act. This page is for information only. It is not tax or legal advice, and it is not a substitute for a qualified adviser who knows your position. ## Related guides - [When a Power of Attorney Is Misused: How NRIs Detect, Revoke, and Recover](/guides/power-of-attorney-misuse-nri) - [Can a General Power of Attorney Transfer Property Title in India?](/guides/can-general-poa-transfer-property-title-india) - [How to Revoke a Power of Attorney from Abroad: The India Process for NRIs](/guides/revoke-power-of-attorney-from-abroad) - [Property Management POA for India: Every Clause, Annotated](/guides/poa-for-property-management-template) - [A Consulate Stamp on Your Power of Attorney Is Not Registration](/guides/nri-poa-abroad-registration-kerala-high-court-aug-2026) ## Compare and cost - [The NRI Property Management Companies in India: A Comparison You Can Check](/guides/best-nri-property-management-companies-india) - [What NRI Property Management Costs in India: The Four Models and What Hides in Each](/guides/nri-property-management-cost-india) - [NoBroker NRI Services Review: What the Pages Promise and What They Leave Out](/guides/nobroker-nri-services-review) --- Source: [https://66mgroad.com/guides/nri-poa-holder-sale-suit-restored-trial-supreme-court-sep-2026](https://66mgroad.com/guides/nri-poa-holder-sale-suit-restored-trial-supreme-court-sep-2026) · 66 MG Road. Full LLM brief: https://66mgroad.com/llms.txt