The main legal point established is that the cancellation of a Power of Attorney requires reasonable notice for revocation, and the termination of authority does not take effect until it becomes known to the agent and third persons.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Order XLI Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 28.07.2003 made in O.S.No.24 of 2003, on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court – IV), Coimbatore at Tiruppur District.)

A. The Appeal:

This Appeal Suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.07.2003 in O.S.No.24 of 2003 by the Additional District Court – Fast Track Court No.IV, Coimbatore at Tiruppur, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed, declaring that the plaintiffs are the owners of items No.1 & 2 of the suit schedule properties and granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any person claiming through them in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs.

1.1 Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant filed the Appeal Suit, who, since passed away pending disposal of the Appeal Suit and his legal heirs are brought on record as appellant Nos.2 & 3. Hereinafter, in this Judgment, the parties are referred to as per their array in the suit.

B. The Case of the Plaintiffs:

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff is the owner of the suit properties. He had constituted the second defendant as his Power of Attorney to sell the suit properties by a registered Power of Attorney, dated 08.04.2002. On the same day, the second defendant had entered into an agreement of sale with the third defendant. Thereafter, the defendants wanted to cancel the said sale agreement and to sell the properties to the plaintiff. The parties agreed for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,13,452/-. The said sale agreement was duly cancelled and a sale deed was duly executed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiffs on 08.08.2002. Thereafter, the defendants demanded an additional sum of Rs.50,000/-, by stating that the first defendant had cancelled the Power of Attorney, even before execution of the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed this suit to declare himself as the owner of the suit properties and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession or in the alternative, to pay back the sale consideration of Rs.3,13,452/-, along with interest and take back the properties.

C. The Case of the Defendants:

3. The first defendant filed a written statement stating that the Power of Attorney executed by him in favour of the second defendant was sham and nominal. It was given as a security for loan to the third defendant and the property was mortgaged to the third defendant through the second defendant on 08.08.2002. The first defendant had cancelled the Power of Attorney given to the second defendant on 05.08.2002, and therefore, the sale deed which was executed thereafter, will not be binding on him.

3.1 The second defendant filed a written statement stating that it was true that he was constituted as a Power of Attorney Agent and he entered into an agreement with the third defendant and third defendant paid the sale consideration in three installments. But, however, to earn more profits, the third defendant identified the plaintiff as the purchaser, and the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.3,13,452/- and accordingly the agreement with the third defendant was cancelled and the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiffs. 3.2 The third defendant filed a written statement by stating that he had entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs through the second defendant totally for two extents. One extent is of 10 Cents of land and another extent is 20 Cents of land, and the transaction in respect of the 20 Cents of lands was cancelled on 08.08.2002. In respect of the balance 10 Cents of lands, since he has already paid a sum of Rs.1,01,000/-, the suit for specific performance has been separately filed against the first defendant and the same is pending.

C. Issues:

4. On the above pleadings, the Trial Court fram