The legal principle established is that a party who has executed a power of attorney is estopped from denying the legal consequences of the actions taken by the power of attorney holder under the authority obtained from the party.

Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. –

Original suit no. 314/2004 (Veer Pal Singh v. Munni Devi @ Mamta Agarwal) was filed for relief of specific performance of contract. The plaint case in brief was that owner of disputed property, the defendant had executed the power of attorney in favour of Radhe Shyam for management etc. of the said property, in which she had authorised power of attorney holder to execute even sale-deed of said land. Under the authority of said power of attorney the Radhe Shyam had executed the registered agreement to sell the disputed property of plaintiff for sale in favour of plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 40,000/- and received advance consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. The plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of contract but defendant had not executed the sale-deed, therefore, plaintiff had given notice firstly to power of attorney holder and then to defendant, and when they had not executed the sale-deed, then plaintiff had filed suit for specific performance of aforesaid contract of sale.

2. The defendant had filed written-statement in original suit by which she had admitted the execution of power of attorney dated 26.12.2001 in favour of Radhe Shyam, but stated that Radhe Shyam had connived with plaintiff and got the executed aforesaid registered agreement to sell, for which no consideration was received by defendant. The said contract was executed without consent or knowledge to defendant. The defendant had also pleaded that by registered deed dated 18.12.2003, she had cancelled her power of attorney executed in favour of Radhe Shyam. The plaintiff cannot claim any right on the basis of aforesaid agreement to sell executed between him and Radhe Shyam, therefore, his suit is liable to be dismissed.

3. The trial court had framed issues, accepted adduced evidences and then Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Court No.4, Etawah had decreed the original suit by its judgment dated 17.12.2013, in which main relief of specific performance was granted and defendant was directed to execute the sale-deed after receiving remaining consideration of Rs. 10,000/-, and trial court had also directed that if legally decreed is found inexecutable then in that case the defendant shall return amount of Rs. 30,000/-, the plaintiff with interest from 26.02.2003.

4. Against the judgment of trial court the defendant had preferred Civil Appeal no. 3/2014 (Smt. Munni Devi @ Mamta Agarwal v. Veer Pal Singh), which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 07.09.2015 of the Court of District Judge, Etawah; by which judgment dated 17.12.2013 of trial court was confirmed. Aggrieved by the judgments of trial court as well first appellate court, this second appeal has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the defendant-appellant was deceived by power of attorney holder Radhe Shyam, therefore he would be prejudiced if the agreement to sell between Radhe Shyam and respondent is executed and specifically enforced. He contended that in any case, the appellant is ready to pay back the advance consideration mentioned in the agreement and plaint, and in the order of trial court. For these reasons, appeal should be admitted for being allowed.

6. It is admitted fact that defendant-appellant had executed the registered power of attorney dated 26.12.2001 in favour of Radhe Shyam and authorised the him to manage the property in suit and had also authorised in power of attorney to sell the said property. It is also admitted fact that before cancellation of said power of attorney, the power of attorney holder had executed the registered agreement to sell for the disputed property on behalf of the appellant, in favour of respondent-plaintiff. When such execution of power of attorney is admitted, then defendant-appellant is estopped for denying its legal consequences. Whether she had original intention of authorisation the power of attorney holder to execute the deed regarding transfer of disputed p