Prudeta
Prudeta
2026 INSC 372
📌 Paras 1.2-1.8
The appellants are aggrieved by a High Court order that allowed a revision petition, set aside a trial court order, and rejected the plaint in a second suit. The second suit sought a declaration that a Power of Attorney (PoA) dated 04.11.2011 was illegal, null, and void, obtained by misrepresentation, coercion, fraud, and undue influence. This PoA was executed by the original owner in favour of Respondent No. 2 concerning properties in Ootacamund and Pudukottai. The second suit was filed by the wife and daughters of the original owner after his demise, following an earlier suit filed by the original owner and his wife seeking injunctions regarding other properties and bank accounts, alleging coercion and undue influence by their son (Respond
The bench further analyzed the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions and discussed the interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 in light of recent precedents...
Citing the ratio in prior decisions, the court held that the legislative intent was to ensure...
No credit card required · 14-day free trial