ORDER

The petitioner-defendant impugnes the judgment and decree dated March 2, 1994 of the Kerala High Court in Second Appeal No. 564 of 1989. The Courts below concurrently found that the petitioner was an agent and Power-of-Attorney holder of the respondent-plaintiff and was looking after her thavazhy properties. The property in question lies in the midst of thavazhy properties. It was outstanding on a lease. In execution a Court auction for recovery of the arrears of rent, the suit-property was purchased by the petitioner in his name. The expenses incurred for the litigation till obtaining the sale certificate were all credited to the account of respondent-plaintiff. For laying coconut grove the expenses incurred were credited to the account of the respondent. Thus the consideration for the purchase as well as the improvements of the property were met with the funds of the respondent for whom the petitioner was acting as an agent and power-of-attorney. He, thereby, obviously had acted in a fiduciary capacity as agent of the respondent. The sale-certificate though ostensibly stands in his name but obviously he obtained it while acting as an agent and power-of-attorney of the respo