IMPORTANT POINT
Powers-of-attorney can be revoked either expressly or impliedly, and subsequent appointments are valid if prior holders have knowledge of the changes.

JUDGMENT :

The legality of the successive appointments of powers-of-attorney by a party to the proceedings is under challenge in this Original Petition. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.51 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Sub Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The respondent is the defendant.

2. On 17.02.2014, the defendant executed a power-of-attorney in favour of one Sivadasan Nair authorising him to prosecute for and on behalf of her. On 02.03.2019, she executed another power of attorney in favour of one Sri. S. Pradeep. On 12.07.2021, she executed a power-of-attorney in favour of one Sri. R. Anilkumar to prosecute the matter.

3. The trial Court accepted the third power-of-attorney holder, Sri.R.Anilkumar, as the agent of the defendant. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.8 of 2021 seeking review of the order accepting Shri. Anilkumar, as the agent of the defendant.

4. The plaintiff contended that without revoking the prior powers-of-attorney executed by the defendant, the defendant could not appoint another power-of-attorney holder to act as her agent.

5. The defendant resisted the application, contending that as per order dated 21.06.2022 in I.A.No.6 of 2021, the trial Court accepted the power-of-attorney executed in favour of Sri. R. Anilkumar and permitted him to act for and on behalf of her. The defendant further pleaded that the powers-of-attorney executed by her are revocable and there was no requirement to inform the prior power-of-attorney holders regarding the subsequent appointment.

6. The trial Court dismissed that application.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/the plaintiff, Advocate Sri. M.R. Sasi, the learned Amicus Curiae, and the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Rules (1) and (2) of Order III of the CPC to contend that the statutory provisions indicate that there shall be an express revocation for appointing a subsequent power-of- attorney to act as an agent. The learned counsel submitted that the recognized power-of-attorney holder is akin to the recognized agent, as provided in Rule 2 of Order III. The learned counsel relied on Janki Vashdeo v. Indusind Bank, [2005 (2) KLT 265 SC] to support his his contentions.

9. The learned Counsel for the defendant submitted that express revocation is not the mandate of Law. The conduct of the principal would necessitate an implied revocation of the power-of-attorney.

10. The learned Amicus Curiae extensively addressed arguments on the question of law. The learned Amicus has taken me to the various provisions in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 , (‘Contract Act' for short) and the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882 .

11. The learned Amicus, relying on Section 207 of the Indian Contract Act, submitted that revocation or renunciation may be expressed or implied in the conduct of the principal or agent, respectively. The learned Amicus added that notice of revocation is required only where the agent himself has an interest in the property, which forms the subject matter of the agency. The learned Amicus submitted that in cases where the agents/power-of-attorney holders have created a liability to a third party, then also notice is required. Relying on Section 208 of the Contract Act, the learned Amicus submitted that the twin conditions for revocation are:-

(i) communication to the agent and

(ii) knowledge to a third party.

12. The learned Amicus submitted that in the present case, those communication and knowledge are implied.

13. The following facts are not in dispute:-

(a)The power-of-attorney holders successively appointed by the defendant had no interest in the property which formed the subject matter of the suit.

(b)The first and second power-of-attorney holders have not created any liability towards a third party.

14. 'Power-of-attorney' is defined in Section 1-A of the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882 . Section 1-A reads thus:-

“...“power-of-attorney” includes any instrument empowering a specified person to act