A sale deed remains valid despite claims of revocation of the power of attorney if the revocation is not evidenced or communicated effectively.

JUDGEMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)

1. The present appeals have been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellants­original petitioners against the common order dated 18.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application Nos.7238 of 2013 and 7239 of 2013, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petitions.

2. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petitions as the identical matter being Special Civil Application No.

6708 of 2013 has been admitted by another Single Judge of this court.

She, therefore, requested this Court to remand this matter before learned Single Judge.

2.1. Learned advocate for the appellants further submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not appreciating the fact that at the time when the sale deed was executed by the power of attorney holder in favour of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7, the order of status quo was in operation.

3. On the other hand learned advocate for the respondents has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the learned Single Judge after appreciating the material on record has passed the impugned order. Therefore, he urged that this Court may dismiss these appeals.

4. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. While dismissing the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge in paragraph Nos. 7 to 11 has observed as under:­ “7. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, that the above findings recorded by the revisional authority are required to be examined. A perusal of the record of the case reveals that Jalbhai Manekji Siganpuriya had, in fact, executed a power of attorney in favour of Sorabji Nadirsha Ankleshwariya. Though it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said power of attorney had been cancelled, all that is brought on record is a deed stated to be executed in December, 2004 before a Notary purporting to cancel the power of attorney dated 30th June, 1999 which had been executed by Jalbhai Manekji Siganpuriya in favour of Sorabji Nadirsha Ankleshwariya before an Executive Magistrate. However, no further evidence has been brought on record to show that Jalbhai Manekji Siganpuriya had issued any notice to the power of attorney holder stating that the power of attorney executed by him in his favour had been cancelled or that any public notice as regards revocation of the power of attorney had been published so as to caution third parties from entering into any transactions with the power of attorney holder on the basis of such power of attorney.

Sections 201 to 210 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provide for “Revocation of Authority” of an agent. Insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, Section 208 thereof would be relevant. Section 208 of the Contract Act provides that the termination of the authority of an agent does not, so far as regards the agent, take effect before it becomes known to him, or, so far as regards third persons, before it becomes known to them. Thus, to establish that the power of attorney had been revoked, the petitioner has to prove that the agent viz. Sorabji Nadirsha Ankleshwariya was aware of the termination of his authority under the power of attorney and that the third parties who purchased the subject land had knowledge about such revocation. In the present case, as noticed earlier, except for producing the above purported deed of cancellation, no other evidence has be