IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of notice prior to the revocation of a power of attorney and the implications of cancellation of the power of attorney, as governed by Section 207 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT :

The present appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging a judgment and decree dated 19.05.2008 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Nagaon in Title Appeal No. 10/2006 whereby the said appeal was dismissed.

2. By the aforesaid impugned judgment and decree dated 19.05.2008, the 1st Appellate Court had affirmed the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) in Title Suit No. 46/1993. The appellant herein was the defendant no. 1 in the aforesaid title suit. The said suit was instituted for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of khas possession.

3. The projected case in the plaint was that on 10.03.1980, a Power of Attorney was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant no. 1 to look after the suit land as the plaintiff was a government servant. On 09.08.1991, the said Power of Attorney was cancelled and the land in question which was in the possession of the defendant no. 1 was demanded back. Initially, the plaintiff had also instituted a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.PC in which, however, a direction was given for approaching the appropriate forum of law. Consequently, the Title Suit No. 46/1993 was instituted as mentioned above. The learned Trial Court had decreed the aforesaid title suit in favour of the plaintiff and the said judgment and decree has also been upheld by the 1st Appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.05.2008.

4. This Court vide order dated 28.11.2008 had framed the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the Issue No. 5 could be decided in favour of the plaintiff by resorting to the provisions of Sections 207 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?”

5. I have heard Shri J Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri BP Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Shri MA Shekh, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Shri Roy, learned Senior Counsel, at the outset, has informed this Court that during the pendency of the case, the original plaintiff-Lakhi Ch. Das has passed away and he has accordingly substituted by ten numbers of legal hers. However, two of the legal heirs, namely, no. 1 and 3 have also passed away. The principal defence taken in the written statement by the present defendant was that he did not have any knowledge regarding the cancellation of the Power of Attorney.

7. By drawing the attention of this Court to the written statement filed by the appellant in the suit, the averments made in paragraph 11 have been relied upon. It is contended that upon consideration of the rival pleadings, the issues were framed and the relevant issue is Issue No. 5 which reads as follows:

“5) Whether the power of attorney was cancelled with the knowledge of the defendant no. 1?”

8. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the recourse to Section 207 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that the materials on record, including the evidence would not be enough to establish that there was any notice issued for revocation of the concerned Power of Attorney dated 10.03.1980. The learned Senior Counsel, accordingly submits that the substantial question of law is to be decided in favour of the appellant and accordingly, this Court should intervene with the impugned judgment and decree and the suit should be dismissed.

9. Percontra, Shri Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the materials on record would show that the concerned Power of Attorney dated 10.03.1980 was cancelled on 09.08.1991 and therefore, upon such cancellation, whatever right had accrued to the defendant had extinguished. He submits that in any case, the said Power of Attorney was only restricted to look after the land and on such cancellation, the land was supposed to be handed over back.

10. On the aspect of notice before such revocation, Shri Sheikh, learned counsel