The principal cannot revoke the authority given to his agent after the authority has been partly exercised, so far as regard such acts and obligations as arise from acts already done in the agency.

S.K.Jain, J.

1. Swaran Singh defendant agreed to sell agricultural land fully described in the plaint in favour of Harbans Singh, Thakar Singh and Iqbal Singh sons of Fateh Singh Plaintiffs in equal shares of a sale consideration of Rs. 18,000/- vide agreement to sell dated 26.6.1972 registered on 29.6.1972. He received Rs. 13,000/- as earnest money. General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of Fateh Singh son of Tehal Singh on 26.6.1972 which was also registered on 29.6.1992 authorising him to get the sale complete. The said attorney Fateh Singh executed two sale deeds dated 28.8.1975 and 28.11.1975 respectively and also received Rs. 5,000/- as balance sale consideration. The possession of the land sold was delivered to the plaintiffs on 6.11.1973. Mutation was also sanctioned accordingly. The defendant cancelled the general power of attorney in favour of Fateh Singh and claimed himself to be the owner of the said property which necessitated the filing of Civil Suit No. 171-A of 17.2.1981 by Harbans Singh, Thakar Singh and Iqbal Singh, plaintiffs, against Swaran Singh defendant. It was contested by the defendant. He denied everything under the sun. It was contended that the general power of attorney in favour of Fateh Singh was executed thereby empowering him to manage the land and not to sell the same. It was cancelled through a registered document on August 27,1975. The sale deeds executed by Fateh Singh on the strength of the alleged power of attorney were void ab initio. In the alternative, it was averred that even if the sale deeds are proved, the same are void ab initio being fraudulent and without consideration.

2. Learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 7-12-1984, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred Civil Appeal No. 240, instituted on 2-1-1985. The learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide his judgment and decree dated 5-1-1988, dismissed the same. It is that judgment and decree of the first appellate Court which has been appealed against by the defendant and which requires my examination of its sustainability. I have seen the pleadings in the suit, the evidence adduced by the parties in the suit and judgments of both the Courts below. Mr. A.S. Cheema, learned Senior counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Courts below have misread, misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence and had, therefore, arrived at wrong conclusions. Vide power of attorney dated 26-6-1972 only power to manage the land was given to Fateh Singh whereas by addition of the words "sale and mortgage" this document has been made to read as power to execute the agreement to sell. Thus, a fraud has been played on the appellant. I do not find any force in this argument.

3. Combined reading of the agreement dated 26.6.1972, Ex.Pl, Power of attorney of the same date Ex. PW5/1, agreement to sell dated 6.11.1973 Ex.P.2. sale Deeds Ex.P.3 to Ex.P5 and statements of Deed Writer Harbhagwan Dass PW3, Harbans Singh attesting witness PW2, Mela Singh attesting witness PW4 and Shri B.D. Aggarwal, the then Sub Registrar PW5, goes a long way to prove the due execution of the said documents as also the payment of the sale consideration. Swaran Singh defendant appearing as DW1 has admitted the execution of the power of attorney Ex.PW5/l by him in favour of Fateh Singh. He has identified his signatures on the said power of attorney as also on the agreement Ex.P1. Besides this , Swaran Singh defendant vide Ex.DW3/1 had intimated to the Sub Registrar that he had executed a general Power of attorney dated 26.6.1972 in favour of Fateh Singh in connection with agricultural land measuring 119 Kanal-15 Maria situated in village Rodala, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, thereby authorising him to mortgage, sale, transfer the said land and to pursue any litigation in connection therewith. The above said evidence has not been rebutted or shattered in any manner and, therefore, I do not