The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's refusal to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that defendants lack locus standi to question the execution of a General Power of Attorney (GPA) to which they are third parties, and that acts of a foreign notary are legally recognisable in India even absent reciprocity under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952. The Court also clarified that a GPA is not a compulsorily attestable document, rendering Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act inapplicable.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiff, Ponnin Selvan, residing in North Carolina, USA, filed Original Suit No. 175 of 2017 before the Principal District Munsif Court at Tirupattur through his father, Sivalingam, acting as General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder. The suit sought declaration of title, delivery of vacant possession, and permanent injunction over suit properties delineated by points A, B, C, D, and E in a rough sketch. The plaintiff claimed title through two registered Gift Settlement Deeds dated April 12, 2012, executed by his father in his favour. The defendants, Chinathai and Soorya, contested the suit and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 CPC in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the GPA was invalid.
Key Facts
- The GPA's jurat portion bears the date September 13, 2016, and was notarised on November 2, 2016, by Jefferson N. Casey, a notary public of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, USA.
- The defendants alleged two defects: (i) the GPA is not attested by two witnesses as required by law, and (ii) the notary's signature is dated February 11, 2016, which predates the alleged execution date of September 13, 2016, indicating a fabricated document.
- The plaintiff's father was recognised as power agent under Order III Rule 2 CPC vide order dated November 27, 2017, in I.A. No. 1219 of 2017.
- The GPA was adjudicated under Section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908, before the Sub-Registrar, Konnur, Adjudication No. 76 of 2026, on November 30, 2016.
- The notary's seal shows commission expiry as "08.14.2021", confirming the mm-dd-yyyy date format.
Procedural History
- 12.04.2012: Two registered Gift Settlement Deeds executed by plaintiff's father in favour of plaintiff.
- 13.09.2016: GPA drafted in India (date appearing in jurat portion).
- 02.11.2016: Plaintiff executed GPA before notary Jefferson N. Casey in North Carolina, USA (date per mm-dd-yyyy format).
- 30.11.2016: GPA adjudicated under Section 33 Registration Act, Adjudication No. 76 of 2026.
- 27.11.2017: Trial Court recognised plaintiff's father as power agent under Order III Rule 2 CPC (I.A. No. 1219 of 2017).
- 2022: Defendants filed I.A. No. 1 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC seeking rejection of plaint.
- 27.06.2023: Trial Court dismissed the Order VII Rule 11 application.
- 2023: Defendants filed Civil Revision Petition No. 4533 of 2023 under Article 227 of the Constitution before Madras High Court.
- 16.10.2026: Arguments heard and reserved.
- 26.10.2026: Judgment pronounced dismissing the revision petition.
Relief Sought
The revision petitioners (defendants) sought setting aside of the trial court's order dated June 27, 2023, dismissal of the Order VII Rule 11 application, and consequent rejection of the plaint in O.S. No. 175 of 2017.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether defendants, as third parties to a GPA, have locus standi to challenge its execution on grounds of attestation and notarisation defects; (2) Whether a GPA is a compulsorily attestable document attracting Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; (3) Whether acts of a foreign notary can be given legal recognition in India in the absence of reciprocity under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952; (4) Whether the date discrepancy in the GPA (February 11, 2016 vs September 13, 2016) establishes fabrication warranting rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners (Defendants)
Mr. D. Daniel submitted that the GPA's jurat shows execution date as September 13, 2016, but the notary signature is dated February 11, 2016, proving the document is false and fabricated. He contended the GPA lacks attestation by two competent witnesses as required by Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and is not notarised per Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952. Consequently, the suit filed under this GPA is not maintainable and the plaint discloses no cause of action. He relied on K. Akbar Ali v. Umar Khan, (2021) 14 SCC 51, where the Supreme Court held courts can examine a GPA when the suit is based on it.
For the Respondent (Plaintiff)
Ms. U. Meharunisha submitted that the plaintiff resides in North Carolina, USA. The GPA was drafted in India on September 13, 2016, sent to the plaintiff, who executed it before the notary on November 2, 2016. The date format in the USA is mm-dd-yyyy, so "11.02.2016" reads as November 2, 2016, not February 11, 2016. The notary's seal showing commission expiry "08.14.2021" confirms this format. She argued a GPA is not a compulsorily attestable document, so Sections 68 and 69 Evidence Act do not apply. Section 14 Notaries Act is not a bar, especially for a GPA executed by a son in favour of his father for litigation. The trial court correctly dismissed the Order VII Rule 11 application.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined five key aspects. First, the order under Order III Rule 2 CPC dated November 27, 2017, recognising the plaintiff's father as power agent, had attained finality. The defendants neither sought its reopening nor filed a revision against it; hence, it could not be collaterally attacked through an Order VII Rule 11 application.
Second, the defendants are third parties to the GPA and lack locus standi to question its execution. The Court held a GPA is not a compulsorily attestable document; therefore, Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are inapplicable.
Third, adjudication under Section 32 of the Registration Act, 1908, is required only for registration purposes. The GPA was duly adjudicated under Section 33 before the Sub-Registrar, Konnur, on November 30, 2016 (Adjudication No. 76 of 2026).
Fourth, on the recognition of foreign notarial acts, the Court relied on a Division Bench decision in Dr. Elizabeth Rajan v. The Inspector General of Registration, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 9444, which referred to Jugraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh, (1970) 2 SCC 386. The Division Bench held that even without reciprocity under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, acts of a foreign notary can be given legal recognition by Indian courts. Section 14 is not mandatory and does not confine Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Fifth, the date discrepancy was resolved by examining the notary's seal showing commission expiry "08.14.2021". Since only 12 months exist, "14" in the second position confirms mm-dd-yyyy format. Thus, "11.02.2016" is November 2, 2016. The GPA contains two dates: September 13, 2016 (drafting in India) and November 2, 2016 (execution before notary in USA). The Court found this explanation natural and convincing, raising no suspicion of fabrication.
Regarding K. Akbar Ali, the Court distinguished it: that case involved a GPA used for sale, alienation, or pre-emption agreement, whereas here the GPA was solely for filing and conducting the suit. The plaint prima facie discloses a cause of action in Paragraph 9, and its veracity is a matter for trial.
"The plaint prima facie discloses cause of action for the Suit and there appears to be no clever pleadings to create an illusional cause of action. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that K. Akbar Ali's Case is not applicable to the facts of the instant case."
The Verdict
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed as devoid of merits with costs payable by the revision petitioners (defendants) to the respondent (plaintiff). The connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP No. 27141 of 2023) was closed. The trial court's order dated June 27, 2023, dismissing the Order VII Rule 11 application in I.A. No. 1 of 2022, was upheld.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Third Parties Lack Locus to Challenge GPA Execution
Defendants who are strangers to a General Power of Attorney cannot challenge its execution, attestation, or notarisation defects through an Order VII Rule 11 application. The Court firmly held that only parties to the GPA or those directly affected by it can question its validity. Practitioners should object at the earliest stage if a power agent is recognised under Order III Rule 2 CPC; once that order attains finality, it cannot be circumvented through a plaint rejection application.
GPA Not a Compulsorily Attestable Document
Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, apply only to documents legally required to be attested. A GPA does not fall in this category. This clarification removes a common ground for challenging GPAs in litigation. Lawyers should note that attestation requirements under the Evidence Act are not a universal bar but depend on statutory mandate for the specific document type.
Foreign Notarial Acts Recognised Without Reciprocity
The judgment reinforces that Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, is not a mandatory provision restricting Section 85 of the Evidence Act. Indian courts can recognise foreign notarial acts even absent formal reciprocity. The Dr. Elizabeth Rajan precedent (Division Bench, Madras HC) and Jugraj Singh (Supreme Court) provide binding authority. For cross-border litigation, GPAs executed before foreign notaries are valid for conducting cases in India, provided they are properly adjudicated under the Registration Act.
Date Format Discrepancies Require Contextual Reading
When a foreign notary's seal or commission date uses mm-dd-yyyy format (evidenced by a month value exceeding 12), all dates in the document must be read consistently in that format. A notary date appearing as "11.02.2016" is November 2, not February 11. Multiple dates in a GPA (drafting vs execution) are not inherently suspicious if plausibly explained. Courts will not infer fabrication from format differences alone.
Order VII Rule 11 Threshold Remains High
The plaint need only prima facie disclose a cause of action. Factual disputes about document authenticity, execution dates, or power agent authority are matters for trial, not summary rejection. The K. Akbar Ali principle allowing court scrutiny of GPAs is confined to cases where the GPA is the basis for substantive alienation or encumbrance, not mere litigation representation.
