ORDER : The respondent in the lower Court is the petitioner before me. During the pendency of an appeal in the District Court, Ramanathapuram, respondents 1 to 7 and 9 in the said appeal filed an application under O. 3, R. 4, Civil P.C., to revoke the vakalat given by their power-of-attorney agent Muthuraja Thevar, to the advocate now on record in the said appeal. The applicants in the lower Court as above are hereinafter referred to by me as principals. Muthuraja Thevar will be referred to as the agent. The principals under Ex. A-1, dated 29-7-1961, appointed an agent to be in charge of their family litigation. Even by the time Ex. A-1 was executed, the agent incurred certain expenses on behalf of the principals to conduct certain proceedings under S. 145, Crl. P.C., before the Revenue Divisional Officer. In consideration of such services in the past and to initiate further legal proceedings in connection with the family and its properties, the principals appointed the agent under a general power-or-attorney dated 29-7-1963. A translation of the same is extracted as it would be necessary in the case :

"In view of the fact that we are unable to unitedly manage and improve the income of the said properties which is now insufficient for the family and to conduct the litigation with reference to the said properties and set them right, we requested yon to conduct our litigation and manage our properties. We have accordingly given you this general power. In C.C. No. 3 of 1960, or the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, which were S. 145 proceedings, we were counter-petitioners. In the said proceedings you helped us and it went against us. It is urgent and necessary that civil proceedings have to be taken for setting aside that order. We have not got the necessary funds and do not know all the details. Besides conducting the said proceedings, in view of the fact that yon need 'urudi' for repaying to you the amount which you have hitherto spent for the said proceedings and for spending in future, we have executed this power. We have given you authority through this to act for us as plaintiff or defendant or petitioner or respondent, give vakalat and to conduct proceeding in Civil, Revenue and Criminal Courts. You will incur the expenses therefor and in the matter of managing our family properties and clearing the encumbrances thereon you can do things according to your discretion without our permission. For the purpose of recouping yourself all the expenses, we authorise you to mortgage or sell out family properties."

I should immediately mention that there was some difference of opinion as to what exactly the word 'urudi" connotes. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner would state that it would mean security, the learned counsel for the respondents would state that it would mean assurance. I shall presently refer to this in the course of my judgement.

2. The power-of-attorney A as cancelled by the principals as they alleged that they lost confidence in their agent. It is also specifically alleged that the agent has not accounted for a sum of Rs. 700 which he has drawn from Court and which represented the costs of the suit originally instituted by the agent on behalf of the principals. The agent, however, took up the position that on a fair reading of the power-of-attorney subsisting in his favour, it is irrevocable as it should be deemed to be and is coupled with an interest within the meaning of S. 202 of the Indian Contract Act.

3. The primary question argued before me is whether such an agency as contemplated in Ex. A-1, which is the power-of-attorney is irrevocable.

4. Before I deal with the main question and probably the only question that was argued before me, I am satisfied that the principal has the right to have his counsel to conduct his litigation, notwithstanding the fact that the agency in question is irrevocable or not. The agent is engaged as a means to an end. He may have other rights under the power-of-atto

Click Here to Read the rest of this document