IMPORTANT POINT
Once power of attorney executed by principal is terminated on death of principal, power agent cannot act on power and thus Section 209 of Contract Act cannot be invoked to maintain suit for injunction.

R.S. Ramanathan, J.— The Plaintiffs are the Appellants. The Plaintiffs filed a Suit for injunction to restrain the Defendants 1, 2 & 4 to 7 from alienating or encumbering the suit properties to any third parties in any manner whatsoever and also for permanent injunction restraining the Third Defendant from registering any document that may be presented by Defendants 1, 2, 4 to 7 in respect of the suit properties.

2. The case of the Appellants/Plaintiffs was that one Muniappa Chetty was the owner of the suit property and he executed the Power of Attorney on 29.10.1980 in favour of Defendants 1 & 2 for arranging the marriage of the Plaintiffs and to maintain the Plaintiffs and to give them seervarisai and the Defendants 1 & 2 have not acted as per the direction given in the Power of Attorney and the Defendants 1 & 2 did not take any steps to perform the marriage of the Plaintiffs 2 to 5 & 8 and they also started spending the money derived from the income from the suit properties and the First Defendant died on 18.11.1998 leaving behind the Defendants 4 to 7 as his legal heirs and as the Defendants 1, 2, 4 to 7 are not acting as per the terms of the Power of Attorney, the Suit was filed for injunction. It is further stated that Muniappa Chetti, the Principal also died on 6.9.1981 without leaving any legal heir.

3. The Fifth Defendant contested the Suit by filing Written Statement contending that the Suit was not maintainable and after the death of Principal, the Power of Attorney executed by him was terminated and Muniappa Chetti did not die without leaving any heirs and his wife is alive and she is the legal heir of Muniappa Chetty and as a Power of Attorney was terminated, the Suit for injunction was not maintainable.

4. The Trial Court decreed the Suit holding that a trust was created and in favour of the Plaintiffs and the Power Agents are bound to carry out the directions given in the power and therefore, they have no right to encumber the property and also restrained the Third Respondent, namely, Sub-Registrar from registering any document brought by Defendants 2, 4 to 7 in respect of the suit property. Aggrieved by the same, the Defendants 2, 4 to 7 filed an Appeal and the First Appellate Court set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and allowed the Appeal. Hence, the Second Appeal.

5. The Second Appeal is admitted on the following Substantial questions of Law:

(1) Whether the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have held that under Section 209 of the Contract Act the Agent is bound to take on behalf of the Representatives of his Late Principal, all reasonable steps for the Protection and preservation of the interests entrusted to him ?

(2) Whether the Judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is vitiated by failure to follow the requirements of the Order 41, Rule 31 of Civil Procedure Code.

6. Mr. M.V. Krishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that though the Principal executed the power, subsequently he died and the power did not get terminated as per Section 201 of the Contract Act and having regard to the provisions of Section 209 of the Contract Act, when certain directions are to be carried out by the Agent under the Power of Attorney even after the death of the Principal, the agent is bound to take all reasonable steps for protection or the interests or the Appellants and further he has submitted that as per the power given to Defendants 1 & 2, a duty was cast upon them to perform the marriage of the Plaintiffs and to provide them with “Seervarisai” and to maintain them and without performing the marriages and without giving any Seervarisai as per the power, they are enjoying the income from the properties and therefore, the Suit was filed for injunction as prayed for.

7. Learned Counsel further submitted as per Section 209 of the Indian Contract Act, the agents are bound to carry out the objectives stated in the power and the Trial Court appreciated the same, the Lower App