SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1950 Supreme(Mad) 393

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice Subba Rao, J.
P.M. Desappa Nayanim Varu
Versus
Ramabhaktula Ramiah
Appeal No.550 of 1947.
Decided On : 12 December 1950

Advocates:
C.S. Venkatachariar and D. Ramaswami Aiyangar for Appellants.
U. Sethumadhava Rao for Respondents.

Power to conduct the case in another Court when the plaint returned for want of jurisdiction.

Headnote:Power-of-attorney -Special power of attorney given for conducting a certain suit pending in certain Court if can be utilized in conducting the case in another Court.

       

Judgment.-

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor dismissing the suit filed by the appellants on the ground that the presentation of the plaint was not valid.

The suit was originally instituted in the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupathi. The plaint was signed by one G. Kanniah as the power-of-attorney agent of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and he also gave a vakalat in that capacity to an advocate practising in that Court. The District Munsif returned the plaint as he found that the subject-matter of the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. The plaint so returned was re-presented in the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Chittoor. One Narayanaswami Naidu claiming to be the power-of-attorney agent of plaintiffs 1 and 2 gave a fresh vakalat to the advocate on 2nd June, 1945 and it was duly accepted by him. The defendants raised the contention that under the power-of-attorney given to Narayanaswami Naidu, no power was conferred on him to engage an advocate or conduct a suit in the Subordinate Judge’s Court. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the contention of the defendants and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.

The only question that arises in the appeal is whether, under the power-of-attorney given by plaintiffs 1 and 2 to Narayanaswami Naidu, he was authorised to conduct the suit in the Subordinate Judge’s Court of Chittoor. The principles-governing the construction of a power-of-attorney are succinctly stated in Bowstead on Agency (6th edition). The learned author says as follows at page 73:

"Powers-of-attorney must be strictly pursued, and are construed as giving only such authority as they confer expressly or by necessary implication. The following are the most important rules of construction.

(1) The operative part of the deed is controlled by the recitals.

(2) Where authority is given to do particular acts, followed by general words, the general! words are restricted to what is necessary for the proper performance of the particular acts.

(3) General words do not confer general powers, but are limited to the purpose for which the authority is given, and are construed as enlarging the special powers when necessary and only when necessary, for that purpose.

(4) The deed must be construed so as to include all medium powers necessary for its effective execution."

Bearing the foresaid principles in mind, the power-of-attorney will have to be construed to ascertain whether under that document a particular power was given expressly or by necessary implication. As the point argued turns upon the construction of the power-of-attorney filed in this case, it is as well the entire document is extracted:

"Special power-of-attorney executed and delivered on 23rd November, 1943, by the following two individuals, namely, Paliyagar Meghavarnam Nayanim Varu’s sons (1) Deshappa Nayanim Varu and (2) Ponnuswami Nayanim Varu, Kshatriya Paliyagars, landlords, residents of the village of Nagari attached to Puthur Sub-registry, Chittoor, Cuddapah registration district, in favour of Kasala Narayanaswami Naidu, son of Abbayi Naidu alias Mutyalu Naidu, Balija, cultivator, resident of Kothuru, hamlet of Mangadu village, attached to the aforesaid registration sub-district, is as follows:

We had filed a suit for possession of lands and for recovery of past profits in O.S.No.314 of 1943 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupati against one Ramabhaktula Ramayya and others. As it is not possible for us to conduct the same personally on account of certain inconveniences, we have appointed you as our agent to carry on the said suit. We have hereby authorised you to conduct on our behalf the entire proceedings which have to be taken in the said suit on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupati, to sign, affix your signature on the vakalatnamahs, affidavits, petitions, compromise-decrees and withdrawal memos, etc., and file the same into Court in the




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top