Facts: The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, perpetual injunction, and damages, claiming ownership of immovable property. The dispute arose from a Power of Attorney (PoA) allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favor of the 1st defendant, her brother-in-law, who then executed sale deeds in favor of the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The plaintiff claimed the PoA relied upon by the defendants was a sham and that the 1st defendant exceeded his authority. The 1st defendant contended the PoA granted him comprehensive authority to sell the property, and the plaintiff had ratified his actions by accepting part of the sale consideration.
Procedural Posture: The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal, dismissing the original suit. The High Court, in a second appeal, reversed the First Appellate Court's judgment and restored the Trial Court's decree. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's judgment as exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Issue: Did the High Court exceed its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by re-appreciating evidence and interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court? Further, was the secondary evidence of the Power of Attorney (Exh. B-2) admissible and sufficient to prove the 1st Defendant's authority to sell the property?
Holding: No, the High Court did not exceed its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the sale deeds executed by the 1st defendant were void due to the invalid PoA. The secondary evidence of the PoA (Exh. B-2) was deemed inadmissible due to the failure to lay a proper factual foundation.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly identified that the First Appellate Court had misread the evidence and relied on inadmissible secondary evidence (Exh. B-2). The 1st defendant failed to establish the necessary foundation for adducing secondary evidence of the PoA, as required by Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The High Court was justified in interfering with the First Appellate Court's findings because they were based on a misreading of evidence and reliance on inadmissible evidence. The Court emphasized that a photocopy of a document is not evidence unless it is proved by following the procedure set out in the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court also noted that courts should not compare disputed signatures themselves without expert assistance when the compared signatures are not admitted signatures.