The court held that a power of attorney's authority cannot be revoked after its execution, and the plaintiffs failed to prove non-payment of consideration, resulting in the dismissal of their suit.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order VII Rule 1 and Order IV Rule 1 - Cancellation of sale deeds - The plaintiffs sought cancellation of sale deeds executed by the 1st defendant under power of attorney, claiming lack of consideration and authority - The court held that the sale deeds were lawfully executed while the power of attorney was in effect, thus denying the cancellation - The plaintiffs failed to establish non-payment of consideration and their claim was barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. (Paras 1, 20, 27, 39, 46)

(B) Agency - Authority of agent - An agent's authority cannot be revoked after it has been exercised, and any acts done under the authority are binding - The court emphasized that the power of attorney granted comprehensive authority to the agent, and the plaintiffs did not prove that consideration was unpaid. (Paras 30, 32, 36)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, claiming ownership of certain properties, sought to cancel sale deeds executed by the 1st defendant as power of attorney in favor of other defendants, alleging lack of authority and consideration. The 1st plaintiff had previously granted a power of attorney for the sale of properties but later sought to cancel it, claiming the properties had been sold without her consent. (Paras 4, 8)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the sale deeds were executed while the power of attorney was valid, and the plaintiffs had not established their claims regarding non-payment of consideration. The suit was dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to include all claims in their earlier suit, violating Order II Rule 2 of CPC. (Paras 39, 46)

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to cancel the sale deeds? 2. Whether the sale deeds were executed without consideration? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of possession? 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 5. Whether the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC? (Paras 15, 16)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the power of attorney was valid at the time of sale, and thus the sales were lawful. The plaintiffs' failure to prove non-payment of consideration and their omission to seek all reliefs in a prior suit barred their current claims. (Paras 26, 39)

Result: The suit stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

The suit had been filed seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 24.03.2005 executed by the 1st defendant as power of attorney agent in favour of the 3rd defendant and registered as Document No.2447 of 2005 in the Sub Registrar Office, Sembiyam and for cancelling yet another sale deed again dated 24.03.2005 executed by the 1st defendant as power of attorney agent in favour of the 4th defendant and registered as Document No.2448 of 2005 in the Sub Registrar Office, Sembiyam and for cancelling yet another sale deed again dated 24.03.2005 executed by the 1st defendant as power of attorney agent in favour of the 5th defendant and registered as Document No.2449 of 2005 in the Sub Registrar Office, Sembiyam and for a declaration that the cancellation of power of attorney by the plaintiffs by way of Document No.983 of 2005 dated 07.04.2005 and registered in the Sub Registrar Office, Sembiyam cancelling the power of attorney dated 29.02.2001 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the 1st defendant which was registered as Document No.324 of 2001 in the Sub Registrar as valid and to cancel sale deed dated 10.01.2008 executed by the 6th defendant as power of attorney agent of the 4th defendant in favour of the 7th defendant and registered as Document No.198 of 2008 in the Sub Registrar Office, Sembiyam and to direct the defendants to handover possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff and in default to pay a sum of Rs.90/- Lakhs together with interest at 24% from 24.03.2005 till the date of payment and to grant permanent injunction restraining defendants from alienating the suit property and for costs of the suit.

2.There are three properties described as Schedule A, B and C in the schedule to the plaint. Schedule A is land bearing Plot Nos.A, B and C in Survey No.18/01 at Annai Velankanni Nagar Extension, Chennai – 600 051 totally measuring 6582 Sq.ft. Schedule B is land in Plot Nos.D and E again in Survey No.18/1, Annai Vellankanni Nagar Extension, Chennai – 600 051 measuring about 4425 sq.ft. Schedule C is land in Plot Nos.F and G also in Survey No.18/01 in Annai Vellankanni Nagar Extension, Chennai – 600 051 measuring 4993 sq.ft.

3.During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and her legal representatives had been brought on record. Subsequently, 9th, 12th, 13th and 14th defendants were transposed as 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th plaintiffs by order dated 28.08.2024 in A.No.3587 of 2024.

4.In the plaint, it had been contended that the 1st plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the properties described in the schedule which totally measured 74 cents. This had been purchased by her father Govindaraj by a registered sale deed dated 05.08.1933 registered as Document No.1245 of 1933. After the death of the parents, the 1st plaintiff and her brother, Parthasarathy, were in joint possession and enjoyment of the total property. Thereafter, on the death of the brother, his wife Jagathambal and 1st plaintiff were in joint possession and enjoyment.

5.The 1st plaintiff filed C.S.No.229 of 1989 agianst Jagathambal claiming 1/2 share of the total property and a judgment was passed on 09.01.1997 decreeing the suit. The 1st plaintiff therefore claims that she is the owner of the 37 cents out of the total area of 74 cents. Separate patta had also been issued in the name of the 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff was residing in the property along with her sons and daughters. Subsequently, she had taken a decision to sell the suit scheduled properties. Her daughter introduced the 1st and 2nd defendants to assist in selling the suit schedule properties. On 09.11.2000, the 1st plaintiff along with the sons and daughters had entered into an Agreement of Sale with the 2nd defendant for the suit schedule properties. The 2nd defendant had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.12,95,000/-. It was agreed that the balance sale consideration would be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Thereafter, f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48960

The court held that a power of attorney's authority cannot be revoked after its execution, and the plaintiffs failed to prove non-payment of consideration, resulting in the dismissal of their suit.

Cases Referred (1)