1. A litigation which commenced two decades ago is still away from its terminal periphery. During its chequered history, this case reached the High Court on an earlier occasion. This is the second time that this Court is called upon to decide this case. The only question to be determined now is whether the person who signed the plaint is the duly authorised agent of the person who figures as the plaintiff therein. If the answer is in the negative, the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of valid plaint.

2. The suit is for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove portions of a sun-shade and window-shutters projecting into the property of the plaintiff. The name of the plaintiff as shown in the plaint is John John who was residing at Madras when the suit was instituted. But the plaint has been signed by his brother Kurian who claims that John has authorised him to institute the suit. The defendants contended, inter alia, that Kurian is not the authorised agent of the plaintiff. Other contentions raised regarding the merits of the case are not very material for the purpose of this appeal. It is enough to point out that the trial court first repelled the