The court clarified that the execution date of a power of attorney sale deed marks the start of the limitation period, reinforcing the principle that notice to an agent serves as notice to the principal.

JUDGMENT

In a suit instituted by the plaintiff, the defendant raised the question of limitation as it is against the sale deed executed by the plaintiff through his power of attorney, the first defendant. The suit was filed after the lapse of more than eight years from the date of its execution. Firstly, a contention was raised by the plaintiff that there is no clause in the power of attorney empowering the first defendant/power holder to alienate the property, but subsequently it was withdrawn presumably on the reason that there is sufficient clause in the power of attorney for execution of deed of transfer and deed of alienation. In order to wriggle out of the question of limitation, a pleading was raised to the effect that the plaintiff came to know about the execution of the sale deed only on a subsequent date and the suit was filed within three years from that date, but at the same time, admitted the execution of the power of attorney in favour of the first defendant. It is a duly executed sale deed by the power holder of the plaintiff and hence, the cause of action, if any would start from the date of its execution and all acts and deeds done by the power holder would have the effect of acts done by the principal as if it were done by him personally. Further, the notice to the agent is also notice to the principal. Hence, the application submitted for rejection of the suit on the ground of limitation under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. ought to have been allowed by the trial court without going into an adventurous roving enquiry as to the question of limitation. The dismissal of the said application hence cannot be sustained. But for the purpose of addressing the issue afresh before the trial court, the impugned order will stand set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration.

The O.P.(C) will stand allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2444/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P7 THE PETITIONER IS PRODUCING THE TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 23.06.97.

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.357/2013 OF

2ND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT DATED 15.04.2013 WITHOUT DOCUMENTS Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS NO.357/2013 OF 2ND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT DATED 18.06.2014 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO. 4278/2018 IN OS NO.357/2013 DATED NIL Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C)

NO.1618/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED

17.08.2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO. 1/2022 IN OS NO.

357/2013 DATED 14.10.2022 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 1/2022 IN OS NO. 357/2013 DATED 03.11.2022 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2480/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.1366/2014 OF

2ND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT WITHOUT DOCUMENTS DATED 12.10.2014.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS NO.1366/2014 OF 2ND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT DATED 21.07.2015 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO. 4278/2018 IN OS NO.357/2013 DATED NIL Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C)

NO.1618/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED

17.08.2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO. 1/2022 IN OS NO.

1366/2014 DATED 14.10.2022 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IA NO. 1/2022 IN OS NO. 1366/2014 DATED 17.10.2022 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 1/2022 IN OS NO. 1366/2014 DATED 03.11.2022 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 13.01.2013 BEFORE THE KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION