The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a plaintiff's wife can testify on behalf of the original plaintiff in a civil suit, even without a power of attorney issued to her. Justice V Srishananda, presiding over a single-judge bench in Dharwad, recently rejected an appeal lodged by Shashikala and others.

They contested an order from the First Appellate Court that overturned a trial court decision dismissing a suit filed by Laxman Yadu Kadam. Kadam sought a declaration of his rights over a disputed property and a restraining order against defendants disrupting the plaintiffs' lawful possession.

The trial court's dismissal was based on the fact that the principal plaintiff didn't provide testimony and instead, his wife deposed, acting on a power of attorney executed by her husband.

The appellants drew upon a 2005 Supreme Court judgment, Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Another Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. and others. This case held that Order III Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure allow the power of attorney holder to "act" on behalf of the principal, but this term doesn't encompass giving testimony on behalf of the principal.

However, the Karnataka High Court cited Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act and stated, "Even without a power of attorney or its validity, PW-1, the wife of the plaintiff, was sufficiently competent to testify on behalf of the original plaintiff."

The court noted that a spouse can be a competent witness even without written authority or power of attorney. It further explained that even if the power of attorney was invalid and PW-1 was deemed incompetent to testify on behalf of her husband, Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act would make her competent to testify for the plaintiff. The court concluded that the First Appellate Court correctly upheld the plaintiff's suit.

Regarding the appellants' citation of the Supreme Court judgment, the bench pointed out, "In the context of the present case, where PW-1 is the wife of the original plaintiff, the principles established in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani are not applicable. PW-1 is inherently competent to testify on behalf of her husband, the original plaintiff, based on Section 120 of the Evidence Act."

As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Shashikala & Others And Laxman Yadu Kadam and Others
Case No: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1832 OF 2005