JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2005 passed in A.S.No.68 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2003 passed in O.S.No.343 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram.)

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2005 passed in A.S.No.68 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2003 passed in O.S.No.343 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram.

2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“(a). Whether the revocation of power of attorney made against the agent and the knowledge about the revocation of the same shall not be presumed from the compelling circumstances and subsequent acts of the agent and the sale transactions entered into by the agent subsequent to the knowledge of revocation is void or not?

(b). Whether the acts of the agent in violation of the condition stipulated in power of Attorney will render the sale transactions entered into by the agent is sham and nominal and not binding on the principal?

(c). Whether the act of the agent utilising the sale consideration at his whims and fancies without any authority or the prior consent of the principal will render the transactions entered into by him invalid or not?”

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved in the second appeal between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

5. Suffice to state that the suit has been laid by the plaintiff against the defendants for the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession.

6. Materials placed on record go to show that the suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff and it is seen that the plaintiff had authorised the first defendant as her power of attorney agent to sell the suit property to the third parties and in connection with the same, she is found to have executed a General Power of Attorney deed on 20.12.1991, the copy of which has been marked as Ex.A3 and the original power of attorney deed has been marked as Ex.B7. On a perusal of the recitals contained in Ex.A3/B7, as rightly found by the Courts below, it is seen that the plaintiff has empowered the first defendant to sell the suit property as her power agent and it is seen that the power deed does not prescribed any time limit for enabling the first defendant to sell the suit property. It is thus seen that the Courts below had negatived the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant had been granted only one year period of time to alienate the suit property by way of the power of attorney deed and on the other hand, as abovenoted, there is no time restriction for the first defendant in selling the suit property to the purchasers/third parties. It is found that the plaintiff had chosen to revoke the abovesaid power of attorney deed executed in favour of the first defendant and accordingly, it is noted that she had executed a revocation deed dated 25.11.1993 marked as Ex.A4. Now, according to the plaintiff, she had orally informed about the revocation of the power of attorney deed done by her by way of Ex.A4 to the first defendant and further, according to the plaintiff, subsequent thereto, on a verification of the encumbrance certificate pertaining to the suit property marked as Ex.A5, she had come to know that the first defendant, without any authority and despite having knowledge about the revocation of the power of attorney deed executed in his favour by way of Ex.A4, had alienated the suit property to the defendants 2 to 16 and inasmuch as the first defendant had acted beyond his jurisdiction, also without any author