Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri Vadeendra Joshi.
For the Respondents: Sri L. Srinivas Patel.

Based on the provided legal document, the following key points are relevant:

1. Unilateral cancellation of an irrevocable General Power of Attorney (GPA) is not permissible when the agent has an interest in the property. This is because such an interest creates a binding relationship that cannot be terminated unilaterally by the principal without due process or legal proceedings (!) (!) .

2. The agreement of sale and GPA in question were registered documents, and their validity and enforceability are recognized, especially when the agreement creates an interest for the agent, which makes unilateral cancellation void (!) (!) .

3. The possession of the plaintiff over the property, as evidenced by the agreement and related documents, was considered sufficient proof of possession, even though no mutation in revenue records was shown. The delivery of possession at the time of agreement was accepted as valid evidence (!) (!) .

4. The sale deed executed in favor of the third party (defendant No.2) was declared null and void because it was in violation of the existing agreement of sale and GPA, which was binding on the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff. The subsequent sale was found to be in collusion and fraudulent (!) (!) .

5. The court emphasized that the sale of immovable property requires diligent verification of title, ownership, and possession by the purchaser. The defendant No.2, despite being aware of the prior agreement, failed to take appropriate precautions such as issuing a public notice or verifying the original documents before purchasing (!) .

6. The necessity of including all interested and necessary parties, such as vendors, in legal proceedings to prevent future disputes or claims was highlighted. Failure to join all relevant parties could affect the validity of the judgment and the rights of those parties (!) (!) .

7. The discretion of the court to grant specific performance is guided by principles of fairness and reasonableness. The court rightly exercised its discretion in favor of the plaintiff, considering the evidence and the legal position that the agreement and GPA were valid and binding (!) .

8. The appeal filed by the defendant No.2 was dismissed, reaffirming the trial court’s judgment, and no costs were awarded (!) .

These points collectively reinforce that the agreement of sale and GPA, being registered and creating an interest, could not be unilaterally canceled, and the subsequent sale to the third party was invalid. The court maintained the rights of the original parties based on their valid agreements and possession, emphasizing due diligence in property transactions.