ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, who is plaintiff, is before this Court in the following circumstance: The petitioner claims to be the joint owner in possession of the land and has filed a suit in O.S. No.11 of 2012 before the Senior Civil Judge, Kumta. She is said to be 72 years old and keeping indifferent health. The defendants had filed written statement admitting the relationship but denied the allegations made in the plaint. The petitioner has filed an application seeking permission to conduct the case through her son, who is a member of a joint family, as her general power of attorney holder. She is unable to tender evidence and as she is hard of hearing and she is suffering from loss of memory and she cannot sit or stand for long. She had approached the doctor at Honnavar and obtained a medical certificate regarding her health condition as also her state of her mind. 3. Therefore, an application was filed seeking permission to lead evidence through her general power of attorney holder. The respondents had filed objections. The Court below has rejected the application, as there was no sufficient material placed to support her contention. That the petitioner necessarily requires to present her case through general power of attorney holder. It is contended that the general power of attorney holder is the eldest son of the petitioner and is fully aware of the circumstances pertaining to the case and is competent to tender evidence as the eldest son of the petitioner even if not as a general power of attorney holder of the petitioner. Therefore, contends that rejection of the permission sought to tender evidence has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. 4. Insofar as the legal position in this regard is concerned, the Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of S. Kesari Hanuman Goud Vs. Anjum Jehan [AIR(SCW) 2013-3561] on a review of the entire case law has laid down as follows: “9. IT is a settled legal proposition that the power of attorney holder cannot depose in place of the principal. Provisions of Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC empower the holder of the power of attorney to “act” on behalf of the principal. IT is a settled legal proposition that the power of attorney holder cannot depose in place of the principal. Provisions of Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC empower the holder of the power of attorney to “act” on behalf of the principal. The word “acts” employed therein is confined only to “acts” done by the power-of-attorney holder, in exercise of the power granted to him by virtue of the instrument. The term “acts”, would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power-of-attorney holder has preferred any “acts” in pursuance of the power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for acts done by the principal, and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of a matter, as regards which, only the principal can have personal knowledge and in respect of which, the principal is entitled to e cross-examined. (See: Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1441 ; Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217 ; M/s Shankar Finance and Investment v. State of A.P. & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 422 ; and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512 .” 5. In this view of the matter, the power of attorney holder can tender evidence. He can certainly tender evidence of the acts that he has performed on behalf of the principal and to that extent there is no bar. Therefore, the application having been rejected in toto may not be in accordance with law. As the power of attorney, in law, can speak about the acts performed by him on behalf of the principal. He cannot, however, depose in respect of the acts performed by the principal and the principal alone is competent to speak about the same. With that observation, the order of the court below is quashed as the petitioner can certainly have the assistance of her power of attorney to tender evidence to the extent possible in terms as aforesaid.