Termination of agency engaged in management of property.

These two appeals arise out of interlocutory applications filed by the appellant for an injunction, and by the respondent for vacating the interim injunction. The appellant is indisputably the owner of the property in question. The appellant-trust appointed the respondent as an agent for taking care of its properties under a letter dated 18.10.1984 marked as Ex.P-1 in the case. The letter reads as follows:

“Be it known that I, hereby, authorise on behalf of the Rukmani Devi Arundale Trust, from this day, the 18th day of October, 1984, Mr.S.Easwaran, son of Sri E.Subramony, No.85, Amman Sannadhi Street, Shencottah to be incharge as representative of the Trust and take such action he deems necessary to furtherance of the Trust lands comprised in Survey Nos.511/1, 55/2 and 511/3 aggregating to 6.73 acres of Courtallam Revenue Village, Tenkasi Taluk of Tirunelveli District.”

It is not necessary to refer toother documents. But suffice it to point out that the appellant terminated the agency by its letter dated 4.5.1990 and called upon the respondent to render accounts. The suit has been filed for rendition of accounts and for an injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the management of the suit property by the plaintiff. The appellant filed I.A. No.9 of 1991 for an injunction pending suit and the court below granted an order of interim injunction. As against that, the respondent filed I.A. No.94 of 1991 to vacate the interim injunction. The contention of the respondent is that the agency is coupled with interest and it cannot be allowed to be cancelled before the petitioner reimburses the respondent for the heavy expenditure incurred by him. According to the respondent he reclaimed the property, improved it and planted several trees. The trial court has accepted the case of the respondent and vacated the interim injunction partially taking a view that the agency cannot be terminated at this stage. The trial court has also observed that if the respondent is prevented from entering into possession, the trees planted already will wither out as there would be none to take care of the same. The trial Court granted only an injunction restraining the respondent from cutting or removing the trees from the suit property. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has preferred these two appeals.

2. Even the facts stated above are sufficient to show that the trial court is in error in vacating the interim injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession of the appellant. Whatever possession, the respondent had, prior to the termination of agency, was only on behalf of the appellant, and it cannot be contended by the respondent that he was in exclusive possession, so as to exclude even the owner thereof, who is the principal. Even assuming that the respondent is entitled to be reimbursed for the amount spent by him, for reclaiming or improving the suit property or for planting the trees, the only course open to him is, to make claims against the appellant and pray for a decree with regard to the same. So far the respondent has not filed any counter claim or written statement in the suit. Even assuming that the respondent is entitled to huge amount from the plaintiff, by way of compensation, the plaintiff cannot be prevented from appointing its own agency to take care of the property. It is not the case of the respondent that the plaintiff will not be in a position to pay the amount which may be claimed by the respondent, and therefore, the plaintiff should not be allowed to reimburse himself from and out of the income from the suit property.

3. It has been held in Southern Roadways Ltd. Madurai v.S.M.Krishnan, (1989)3 S.C.C. 603, that a principal has every right to carry on business as usual after the removal of the agent and that the possession of the agent of the premises in question is only that on behalf of the principal. It has been pointed out that principal was never out of possession. In tha