Ram Prasad v. Hari Narain

Introduction

Can a power of attorney holder enter the witness box and give evidence on behalf of the principal?

The Rajasthan High Court considered this question in Ram Prasad v. Hari Narain & Ors., AIR 1998 Raj 185; 1997 (3) WLC 631; 1997 (2) WLN 393.

The judgment is an important authority on Order III Rule 2 CPC, power of attorney holders, examination of witnesses and the distinction between acting for a party and giving evidence on behalf of that party. The Court held that a power of attorney holder can act for the principal and can testify in his own personal capacity, but cannot appear as a witness in the capacity of the principal.

Case Details

Case Name

Ram Prasad v. Hari Narain & Ors.

Court

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur

Judge

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.

Date of Judgment

1 August 1997

Citation

AIR 1998 Raj 185; 1997 (3) WLC 631; 1997 (2) WLN 393

Relevant Provisions

• Order III Rule 2, CPC
• Section 118, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• Section 119, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Subject Matter

Power of attorney holder, right to depose, personal capacity, witness examination and scope of recognised agents.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction and possession of property against the defendants.

After the written statement was filed and issues were framed, the matter was fixed for recording the plaintiff’s evidence.

The plaintiff was an elderly person suffering from serious hearing loss and had become deaf.

He had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of his son, Satya Narayan, authorising him to act on his behalf.

The plaintiff then filed an application requesting that his son, as his power of attorney holder, be permitted to appear as a witness on his behalf.

The defendants opposed the application.

The trial court rejected the application.

The plaintiff therefore approached the Rajasthan High Court in revision.

Main Issue Before the Court

The principal question before the High Court was:

Whether a power of attorney holder of a party is entitled to appear as a witness on behalf of that party.

The Court answered:

No.

A power of attorney holder cannot enter the witness box on behalf of the principal in the principal’s capacity.

However, the attorney holder may give evidence in his own personal capacity regarding matters within his own knowledge.

Order III Rule 2 CPC

Order III Rule 2 recognises persons holding powers of attorney as recognised agents of parties.

Such agents may make appearances, applications and acts on behalf of the parties to the extent authorised.

The important question was whether the word “acts” includes appearing in the witness box and giving evidence in the name of the principal.

The Court held that it does not.

Meaning of “Acts”

The Court specifically examined the expression “acts” used in Order III Rule 2 CPC.

It held that the word “acts” does not include the act of a power of attorney holder appearing as a witness on behalf of the party.

Therefore:

Power to Act ≠ Power to Give Evidence for the Principal.

This distinction forms the central principle of the judgment.

Attorney Holder Can Be a Witness

The judgment does not mean that a power of attorney holder is completely prohibited from giving evidence.

The Court made an important distinction.

A power of attorney holder:

• may appear as a witness;
• may give evidence on oath;
• may state facts within his own knowledge;

but he must do so in his own capacity.

He cannot enter the witness box and claim to be giving evidence as though he were the principal.

Personal Knowledge

The distinction is based on the principle of personal knowledge.

A witness can testify about facts which he personally knows.

A power of attorney does not transfer the personal knowledge of the principal to the attorney holder.

For example, if A gives B a power of attorney, B does not automatically acquire knowledge of:

• A’s personal intentions;
• A’s private conversations;
• A’s personal conduct;
• facts personally experienced by A; or
• reasons known only to A.

Therefore, B cannot simply enter the witness box and testify as though he were A.

Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan

The Court relied upon the earlier Rajasthan High Court judgment in Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 (2) WLN 713.

That case had held that a general power of attorney holder may:

• appear;
• plead; and
• act

on behalf of the principal.

However, he cannot become a witness on behalf of the principal.

The Court in Ram Prasad followed this reasoning and treated it as the correct interpretation of Order III Rule 2 CPC.

Rejection of the Earlier Approach

The plaintiff relied upon an earlier Rajasthan High Court decision, Roop Chand v. Narayan Lal.

In that case, there had been an observation that a party could examine either the party himself or his power of attorney holder as a witness.

However, the Court in Ram Prasad explained that the earlier case was primarily concerned with the inclusion of a witness’s name in the list of witnesses.

The earlier judgment had not properly considered:

• Order III Rule 2 CPC; or
• the meaning of the word “acts”.

Therefore, the Court did not treat that observation as controlling the present issue.

The Plaintiff’s Medical Condition

An important factual aspect was that the plaintiff was an elderly person suffering from severe hearing loss.

The plaintiff argued that because he could not conveniently appear in court, his son should be permitted to give evidence for him.

The Court did not accept this argument as a basis for permitting the attorney holder to become the plaintiff’s witness.

Instead, the Court pointed out that the CPC provides mechanisms for recording the evidence of a person who cannot conveniently attend or participate in the ordinary manner.

Commission for Recording Evidence

The Court observed that where the plaintiff is unable to appear in court, a commission for recording his evidence may be issued under the relevant provisions of the CPC.

Thus, inability to personally attend court does not automatically permit another person to substitute himself as the principal’s witness.

Section 118 of the Evidence Act

The Court also referred to Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides the general rule regarding competency of witnesses.

The section makes persons competent to testify unless they are incapable of understanding questions or giving rational answers due to specified causes.

The plaintiff’s physical difficulty therefore did not mean that his son could simply replace him as a witness.

Section 119 of the Evidence Act

The Court further referred to Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, concerning witnesses who are unable to speak.

The Court observed that appropriate methods can be adopted to make evidence intelligible.

It considered that similar assistance could be provided to a deaf witness where necessary.

Therefore, procedural mechanisms existed to facilitate the plaintiff’s own evidence rather than substituting the attorney holder for him.

Representation vs. Evidence

The most important distinction in the case is:

Representation

A power of attorney holder may represent the principal and perform authorised acts.

Evidence

Giving evidence is a personal function.

The attorney holder may testify about facts personally known to him, but cannot testify as the principal.

Thus:

A power of attorney may delegate authority to act, but it does not delegate the principal’s personal testimony.

Simple Example

Suppose A gives B a General Power of Attorney concerning A’s property.

B personally negotiates with C regarding the sale of the property.

If litigation arises, B can give evidence regarding:

• negotiations conducted by B;
• documents signed by B;
• communications received by B; and
• other facts personally known to B.

But B cannot automatically testify about A’s personal intention or knowledge merely because B holds A’s power of attorney.

Another Example

Suppose A claims that B wrongfully took possession of A’s property.

A gives C a power of attorney.

C may represent A in the litigation.

But if the question is:

“What did A personally see when B entered the property?”

C cannot answer that question merely because C is A’s attorney holder.

That is a matter of A’s personal knowledge.

Supreme Court’s Later Approval

The principle in Ram Prasad v. Hari Narain was subsequently approved by the Supreme Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd.

The Supreme Court agreed with the view that the word “acts” in Order III Rules 1 and 2 CPC refers to acts performed by the power of attorney holder pursuant to the authority granted to him.

It does not permit the attorney holder to depose in place of and instead of the principal.

The Supreme Court further clarified that an attorney holder may depose regarding acts actually performed by him, but cannot depose about matters personally known only to the principal.

Therefore, Ram Prasad became an important part of the judicial development of the law relating to power of attorney holders and witness testimony.

Difference Between Acting and Deposing

Acting	Deposing
Attorney may act for principal	Attorney cannot automatically depose for principal
Governed by Order III CPC	Requires personal knowledge
Authority may be granted through POA	Personal knowledge cannot be delegated
Attorney may perform authorised acts	Attorney may testify about his own acts
Representation of principal	Evidence in attorney’s own capacity

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio of Ram Prasad v. Hari Narain is that the word “acts” in Order III Rule 2 CPC does not include the act of a power of attorney holder appearing as a witness on behalf of the principal. A power of attorney holder may appear as a witness in his own personal capacity and testify regarding matters within his knowledge, but cannot enter the witness box in the capacity of the principal or substitute himself for the principal’s personal testimony.

Legal Principles Established

1. Attorney Holder Is a Recognised Agent

A person holding a valid power of attorney may act for the principal within the scope of the authority granted.

2. “Acts” Does Not Include Substitution as a Witness

Order III Rule 2 does not authorise an attorney holder to become the principal’s witness.

3. Attorney Can Give Personal Evidence

The attorney holder may testify about facts within his own personal knowledge.

4. Personal Testimony Cannot Be Delegated

A power of attorney does not transfer the principal’s personal knowledge.

5. Physical Inability Does Not Change the Rule

If the principal cannot conveniently attend court, appropriate procedural mechanisms may be used for recording the principal’s evidence.

Examination Formula

For Ram Prasad v. Hari Narain, remember:

Order III Rule 2

↓

Recognised Agent

↓

Power to Act

↓

No Power to Become Principal’s Witness

↓

Attorney Can Testify in Own Capacity

A simple memory formula is:

POA gives Power to Act, not Power to Testify as Principal.

Relationship With Shambhu Dutt Shastri

These two cases should be remembered together.

Shambhu Dutt Shastri

Established the principle that a general power of attorney holder can appear, plead and act but cannot become a witness for the principal.

Ram Prasad

Reaffirmed the principle and specifically interpreted the word “acts” in Order III Rule 2 CPC.

Thus:

Shambhu Dutt Shastri → Basic principle.

Ram Prasad → Interpretation of “acts” and reaffirmation.

Relationship With Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani

The three cases form a useful sequence:

Shambhu Dutt Shastri

↓

Attorney holder cannot become principal’s witness.

Ram Prasad

↓

“Acts” under Order III Rule 2 does not include giving evidence for the principal.

Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani

↓

Supreme Court approves the principle and clarifies that an attorney holder can depose regarding acts personally performed by him.

This is an excellent way to remember the development of the law.

Law Student and Judiciary Relevance

For examinations, remember:

Order III Rule 2 → Power of Attorney holder is a recognised agent.

“Acts” → Does not include appearing as witness for the principal.

Attorney’s Own Knowledge → Can be stated on oath.

Principal’s Personal Knowledge → Cannot be substituted by attorney.

Principal Unable to Attend → Commission may be used for recording evidence.

The most important proposition is:

A power of attorney holder can appear as a witness in his own capacity, but cannot appear as a witness on behalf of the principal in the principal’s capacity.

ALSO READ: Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan

Key Takeaways

Principle	Rule
Power of Attorney	Creates authority to act for the principal
Order III Rule 2	Recognises attorney holders as agents
“Acts”	Does not include becoming the principal’s witness
Attorney Holder	May testify in his own capacity
Personal Knowledge	Cannot be delegated
Principal’s Evidence	Attorney cannot substitute himself
Principal Unable to Attend	Court may use appropriate procedures for recording evidence
Later Development	Principle approved by the Supreme Court

Conclusion

Ram Prasad v. Hari Narain is an important authority on the limits of a power of attorney holder’s role in civil proceedings.

The Rajasthan High Court clearly distinguished between representation and evidence. A power of attorney holder can act for the principal and can give evidence regarding matters personally known to him. However, he cannot enter the witness box in the capacity of the principal and give evidence as a substitute for the principal.

The judgment is particularly important because it later received approval from the Supreme Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd.

The central lesson is:

A power of attorney delegates authority to act, not the personal knowledge or testimony of the principal.

For a law student, remember:

Attorney Can Act.

Attorney Can Represent.

Attorney Can Give Evidence About His Own Knowledge.

Attorney Cannot Become the Principal’s Substitute Witness.