Important Point—If interest created in agent in result or proceedings arisen after exercise of powers then agency is revocable and cannot be said to be an irrevocable agency.

1. The plaintiff maintained the revision against the defendant of O.S. No. 942 of 2011 which is a suit filed in relation to the plaint schedule property of Ac-24-10 guntas with building therein known as Mount Pleasant house bearing Nos. 8-2-249 to 267 at road No. 3 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, within boundaries described for the relief of declaration that action of defendant in cancelling irrevocable General Power of Attorney (for short GPA) document No. 2119 of 1994 dated 16.09.1994 is illegal and arbitrary and further to declare the plaintiff would continue as GPA holder of the defendant in terms of the document supra and to cancel the cancellation of irrevocable GPA document No. 210 of 2011 dated 30.04.2011 and for permanent injunction restraining defendant and persons claiming through him to give effect to said cancellation of GPA dated 30.04.2011 supra of Sub Registrar Khairatabad and such other just reliefs.

2. The averments in support of the plaint in claiming the reliefs are that the defendant is the absolute owner of the property described in the plaint schedule supra and he executed GPA in 1994 referred supra appointing the plaintiff as GPA holder to safe guard the property and to sell 6 acres out of it and plaintiff is taking steps to safe guard the property and protect the interest of defendant. One M/s. Sultan-Ul-Uloom Educational Society claiming the property filed O.S. No. 297 of 2004 for specific performance and the defendant herein was the 1st defendant and as GPA holder of the defendant herein, the plaintiff contested that suit and against dismissal decree and judgment of O.S. No. 297 of 2004 supra, the plaintiff society maintained CCCA. No. 196 of 2006 in High Court and the appeal was also ended in dismissal and the society filed SLP No. 27953 of 2009 in Supreme Court which is pending and plaintiff is as GPA holder pursuing the matter there through senior counsel. While stood thus, the defendant mischievously cancelled GPA of 1994 supra though it is irrevocable GPA. The cancellation in 2011 by registered document supra discloses no reasons for cancellation and the cancellation is unilateral and illegal and unsustainable for the same is protected by Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act which no way enables the defendant to cancel the GPA and plaintiff issued notice dated 20.05.2011 questioning the defendant of the cancellation and seeking to restore the original GPA of 1994 and as defendant failed to comply and failed to reply, plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for said reliefs. It is pending suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 317 of 2011 for temporary injunction, therein interim injunction was granted on 15.07.2011 and for the violation of which plaintiff filed I.A. No. 858 of 2011 under Order 39 Rule 2(a) CPC.

3. The defendant contested the suit vis--vis the injunction petition with claim that the plaintiff being an agent as per the original GPA of 1994, cannot put restriction on the power of the defendant-principal to deal with the property as defendant is the absolute owner admittedly and once the defendant already cancelled the GPA in 2011 undisputedly, the question of not giving effect to the cancelled GPA does not arise and there is nothing remained to grant the suit reliefs and the suit reliefs have legal sanctity and with no maintainability. The principal does not loose the powers to deal with his property merely because he executed a GPA much less to question the same powers of principal to maintain any suit by the agent and various averments of the plaint that plaintiff is protecting the interest of the defendant as his GPA holder in the litigation maintained by the Educational Society supra are not correct and for plaintiff acted several times without knowledge of defendant in a manner which he does not like to do with embarrassment and unhappiness to the defendant by defaming the defendant and plaintiff also did not bring to the notice of the defendant several issues. So far as leg