Back
1993 Supreme(Cal) 415
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Altamas Kabir, J.
Messrs Arihant International & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The Commissioner of Panihati Municipality & Ors. - Respondents
Decided on : September 10, 1993
Mr. Anindya K. Mitra, P. K. Ghosh, Samit Talukdar and I. P. Mukeji ......for the Petitioners
Mr. Bimal K. Chatterjee and Ranjan Sinha ….for tile Respondent No. 14
Senior Standing Counsel and Mr. Dilip De .......for the Panihati Municipality
Mr. P. K. Dulla ......for the other Respondents
The power of attorney granted to an agent terminates on the death of the principal, and the agent cannot proceed further without a fresh power of attorney from the principal's heirs.
Headnote:
POWERS OF ATTORNEY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 3 - POWER OF ATTORNEY TERMINATES ON DEATH OF PRINCIPAL - SUBMISSION OF BUILDING PLANS BY AGENT AFTER PRINCIPAL'S DEATH IS VALID IF AGENT WAS UNAWARE OF DEATH, BUT AGENT CANNOT PROCEED FURTHER WITHOUT FRESH POWER FROM HEIRS.
Fact of the Case:
A partnership firm entered into an agreement with joint owners of a property to develop the property. One of the joint owners, Prakashwati Devi Kajaria, executed a power of attorney in favor of the firm to obtain sanction for building plans. Prakashwati Devi Kajaria died, and her heirs objected to the sanction of the building plans. The firm filed a writ petition challenging the withholding of sanction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the submission of the building plans by the firm was valid under Section 3 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882, as the firm had no knowledge of Prakashwati Devi Kajaria's death at the time. However, the court also held that the firm could not proceed further with the sanction of the building plans without a fresh power of attorney from Prakashwati Devi Kajaria's heirs.
Issues: 1. Whether the submission of building plans by an agent after the principal's death is valid if the agent was unaware of the death? 2. Whether the agent can proceed further with the sanction of the building plans without a fresh power of attorney from the principal's heirs?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 3 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 indemnifies any action taken by an agent on the strength of a power of attorney without knowledge of the death of the principal. 2. However, Section 3 does not enable the agent to continue to act on the strength of such power after the principal has died and the agent has knowledge of the same.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court directed that there would be no order as to costs.
The petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm having its office at "Sagar Estate", 2. Clive Ghat Street. Calcutta- 700 001, and the petitioner No.2 is one of the partners thereof.
2. The case of the writ petitioners, as made out in the writ petition, is that one Prakashwati Devi Kajaria and the respondents Nos. 4 to 13, as the joint owners of premises No. 105-F, North Station Road, Agarpara, District-24 Parganas (North), within Panihati Municipality, entered into two Memorandums of understanding dated 9th April, 1991 and 27th May, 1991, respectively, with M/s. R. D. Builders, for construction of a building complex on the said premises, on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. M/s. R. D. Builders agreed to nominate the petitioner No.1 firm to develop the said premises in its place, and, towards that end, the joint owners thereof entered into a fresh Agreement with the petitioner No.1 firm on 27th December, 1991, with the said M/s. R. D. Builders as Confirming Party. The said Agreement was duly registered with the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Barasat.
3. According to the petitioners, it would be clear from the Agreement itself that the same was binding on the heirs, legal representative and successors-in-interest of the owners, and it empowered the petitioners to prepare plans for the construction or multi-storeyed buildings and arrange for the same to be sanctioned and/or approved by the appropriate authority, in accordance with law.
4. After the execution of the said Agreement, all the owners, including Prakashwati Devi Kajaria, executed and registered separate Powers of Attorney in favour of the petitioner No.2 empowering him to take all steps for obtaining sanction of the building plans and for construction of the new building complex in the said premises.
5. On the strength of the said Agreement and the Powers of Attorney executed by the owners, the petitioners prep1rd and submitted a Building Plan to the Panihati Municipality for sanction of the construction of a multi-storeyed building complex in the sad premises. On being satisfied that the Building Plan was in keeping with the Building Rules, the Municipality demanded sanction fee, building development charge and other requisite charges, amounting to Rs. 2,28,283/-, which was duly deposited by the petitioners on 24th September, 1992, under receipt granted by the Municipality in favour of the petitioner No.2 in his capacity as Constituted Attorney of the joint owner".
6. It is the specific case of the petitioners that while steps were being taken to obtain formal grant of sanction of the Building Plan, the petitioners came to know from the office of the Panihati Municipality that Prakashwati Devi Kajaria had died on 4th April, 1992, leaving behind her surviving the respondents Nos. 6, 14 and 16 as her heirs and legal representatives. The petitioners also came to learn from the Municipal authorities that sanction to the Building Plan submitted by them had been withheld a, one of the heirs of Prakashwati Devi Kajaria had made an objection to the Municipality in that regard.
7. In this writ application, the petitioners have challenged that withholding of sanction of the said Building Plan by the Panthati Municipality.
8. Appearing in support of the writ petition, Mr. Anindya Mitra submitted that since the petitioners had no knowledge of the death of Prakashwati Devi Kajaria prior to the submission of the Building Plan with the Panihati Municipality, such action was protected under Section 3 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882.
9. Mr. Mitra then submitted that when it was the common intention of the joint owners that the property should be developed by the petitioners, the death of one of the joint owners would not invalidate the powers given by the other joint owners to the petitioner No.2.
10. In this regard, Mr. Mitra referred to and relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in the case of (1) Badrinarain Agarwalla v. Brijnarayan Roy and Others, repo
