The power of attorney terminates upon the death of the principal, and the attorney holder has no locus standi to continue the suit proceedings without authorization from the legal representatives or assignees of the deceased principal.

V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision gives rise to an important question of law, namely, whether the power of attorney survives after the death of the principal so as to enable the attorney holder to continue the suit proceedings.

( 2 ) O. S. NO. 895 of 1985 was filed for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership against the present revision petitioners. Pending that suit, the plaintiff died on 7th October, 1985. Thereafter, the respondents herein filed an application, I. A. (SR) 13 of 1986, for bringing the legal representatives on record along with a condone delay petition in filing that L. R. application. However, the delay condone application was dismissed by the trial Court on 23rd February, 1987 and even the revision petition preferred against that order to this Court resulted in dismissal. In spite of all this, the trial Court was calling the suit by, adjourning it from time to time. The revision petitioners application to dismiss the suit, as abated, was dismissed by the trial Court, holding that the power of attorney holders were on record and therefore, the suit cannot be said to have abated. Hence, this revision by the defendants.

( 3 ) THOUGH notices were served on the respondents, nobody appeared on their behalf and they were called absent.

( 4 ) NOW, adverting to the question framed in the opening paragraph, it is to be noticed that Sections 201, 208 and 209 of the Contract Act have relevance to the issue. Section 201 postulated that the agency stands terminated by the death of the principal, apart from other contingencies. As per Section 208, the moment the agent comes to know of the death of the principal, the agency comes to an end. Section 209 empowers the agent, on termination of the agency by virtue of the death of the principal, to take all reasonable steps to safeguard and protect the property involved in the matter. In the case on hand, the respondents herein came to know of the death of the principal in the year 1986 itself when the application to bring the legal representatives on record was filed. However, that revision could not be maintained inasmuch as the delay in filing that application was not condoned and the LA. therefore, stood dismissed. As noted supra, a reading of Sections 201 and 208 of Contract Act, together, makes it clear that the moment the agent (Power of Attorney) comes to know of the death of the principal, the agency (the power under the attorney) comes to an end. Consequently, once the agency stands terminated, the power of attorney holder (agent) has absolutely no locus standi to continue the suit proceedings.

( 5 ) THIS is not a case where the legal representatives or the assignees of the principal authorised the power of attorney holders to continue as such, in order to enable them to continue the suit proceedings. In the absence of such an authorisation, the power of attorney holders are incapable to continue the suit proceedings. More or less in a similar context, the Privy Council in Mujibunnissa vs. Abdul Rahim as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, considered the question, whether the registration of the instrument effected at the instance of the power of attorney from a dead man is valid. The facts in that case show that the executant of the instrument (Principal) having completed the instrument in all respects, after its return for compliance, by 24th October, 1889, happened to die, and after his death the instrument was represented for registration on 4- 11-1889 by the agent and that was registered. The Privy Council after referring to these facts, held that inasmuch as the principal was dead by the date of representation, the agent was incapable of acting on his behalf since the agency stood terminated. Accordingly, the registration effected was held to be invalid rendering the document to be inadmissible.

( 6 ) IN Karam Bibi vs. Mehr Ali, the Lahore High Court dealing with a similar question held:"where a decree-holder who has given a powe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document