1. The plaintiff is in second appeal.

2. The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking for a declaration that the power of attorney executed by the defendants in his favour was subsisting and to act on the power of attorney He also sought for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the developmental works of the suit schedule property.

3. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff and defendants entered into a joint development agreement on 27/08/2007 whereby the plaintiff agreed to develop the suit property and thereafter would be entitled to dispose of a portion of suit property to meet the expenditure that he had incurred for developing the property and also towards his profits.

4. Clause 5 of the said Joint Development deals with permission which is as follows;
'5.1 That, the owner gives permission to the DEVELOPER to enter upon the schedule property with full right and authority to commence, carry on and complete development thereof in accordance with the permissions herein mentioned. This shall not be construed as delivery of possession under S.53 - A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. I other words the OWNER shall continue to be in possession till such time as the contract is discharged by performance and the DEVELOPER shall have only the right of entry to the schedule property for the purpose of this contract.'

5. The Joint Development Agreement also contains a clause regarding completion which reads as follows;
'27.1 That, the DEVELOPER agrees to complete the development of the schedule property within 18 calendar months from the date of this Agreement and in case of any un foreseen circumstances, i.e. force majeure, the above said period shall be extended upto 36 (thirty six) calendar months period. The time is the essence of this Contract. At the completion of the aforesaid period this Agreement shall stand Cancelled and the OWNER shall be free to transact with the schedule property in any manner the OWNER may choose. However, if here are any Government restrictions, prohibition and orders effecting the development process, this agreement shall be extended upto one year dead line. '

6. It is clear from this Joint Development Agreement that the plaintiff had only a right to enter upon the land in order to do any developmental work and this agreement would be in subsistence only for 18 months. Since the Joint Development Agreement was entered into on 27/08/2007, as per clause 27.1 the Joint Development Agreement would stand automatically cancelled from 27/04/2009.

7. Clause 26 of the Joint Development Agreement also contemplates that the owner i.e. defendants to execute a power of attorney in favour of a developer which reads as follows;
'26. POWER OF ATTORNEY:
26.1 That, the OWNER shall execute a Power of Attorney in favour of the DEVELOPER to do all the acts and / or deeds necessary to carry out the various activities as mentioned in the agreement and any other related or connected matter including the power to execute Agreement for Sale of DEVELOPER'S INTEREST and to receive the money in advance from the intending buyer(s), to execute sale deeds of DEVEOPER'S INTEREST and register the same, present the agreements, sale deed(s) to the Sub Registrar or Registrar, to admit before the Sub-Registrar or Registrar to sign affidavits, declarations, forms, applications, etc., and to do all other necessary acts and deeds required for registration of sale deed(s) of DEVELOPER INTEREST'

8. As could be seen from the said clause, the power of attorney was executed only for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to execute agreements for sale of his (developer's) interest and to receive money in advance from intending purchasers and to execute the sale deed in respect of the developer's interest.

9. It is thus clear that under the Joint Development Agreement, the plaintiff was entitled to enter into agreements to sell his share of the developed area.

10. Nearly three years