Power of Attorney & Revenue records neither create title nor extinguish title. Investigation report prepared by lawyer will not also be confer ownership

Recently, the Hon'ble Patna High Court in State of Bihar vs United Commercial Bank Ltd., had to deal with an interesting question as to whether Power of Attorney and Revenue records do confer a title on a person. Also, whether lawyer's opinion is conclusive proof of title. The Hon'ble High Court answered these question in negative. The reasoning is extracted herein under;

"15. On the contrary, the defendant, Bank has examined D.W.1 to 4. D.W.1 has stated that he got the matter investigated and the Advocate who investigated the matter told him that defendant no.2 is the owner of the property who is in possession. D.W.2 is the „karpardaz‟ of defendant no.1 and the defendant no.3 is the retired clerk of the Bank. He has stated that he has found possession of the defendant no.2. These are the evidences produced by the State Bank of India. The State of Bihar produced Exhibit B which is the agreement entered into between Collector, Muzaffarpur and the defendant no.2 to show that defendant no.2 entered into agreement with the Collector on behalf of plaintiff on the basis of power of attorney. In the agreement itself, it is mentioned that defendant no.2 has entered into agreement on behalf of the plaintiff but the court below did not rely on this, on the ground that the power of attorney has not been produced. In my opinion, this approach of the court below is not acceptable. Exhibit C has been produced to show that possession was delivered by the plaintiff to the State of Bihar, defendant no.3. Exhibit E has been produced by the State of Bihar to show that compensation was received by defendant no.2. It may be mentioned here that the case of the plaintiff is that he was embassy to Japan and after 1960, he was residing in Delhi. Therefore, he executed power of attorney in favour of his eldest son, defendant no.2. This is mentioned in the agreement itself. Defendant no.2 was appointed as power of attorney to look after land acquisition case and received the compensation, therefore, the defendant no.2 has received the compensation. The question is only because he has received the compensation, can it be said that he is the owner of the property. The court below further considering Exhibit J held that defendant no.2 is the owner. This Exhibit J is khatiyan prepared in land acquisition case by State of Bihar. It is settled principles of law that revenue records neither create tile nor extinguish title and on the basis of Exhibit J, no conclusive finding can be recorded that the suit property is the joint family property or that the defendant no.2 is the exclusive owner of the property in face of the overwhelming documentary evidences including the title deeds produced by the plaintiff.

16. In view of the above discussion, I find that the court below wrongly approached the case and has not appreciated the evidences in their right perspective. The defendant no.2 has not produced any document or adduced any evidence to show that it is his property. Likewise, the defendant no.1 also did not produce any reliable evidence on the basis of which it can be recorded finding that defendantno.2 is the owner of suit property. The nature of evidence adduced by defendant no.1 is that a lawyer investigated the matter and informed that defendant no.2 is owner and is in possession. It may be mentioned here that Advocate has not been examined. In view of the above, I find that the plaintiff has been able to prove that he was the owner of the property which was his self-acquired property. The finding of the trial court on this question is, therefore, reversed. Since the properties belonged to the plaintiff, it could not have been attached by the defendant no.1 in the execution case which was obtained against defendant no.2."