Implied revocation of a power of attorney can be established through subsequent actions by the principal, invalidating unauthorized transactions made by the agent.

JUDGMENT

The present appeal suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.07.2016 passed in O.S.No.48 of 2009 on the file of Additional District Judge, Dindigul.

2. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants herein and the defendants are the respondents herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.

3. The suit in O.S. No. 48 of 2009 was filed seeking a preliminary decree against the 1^st defendant for rendition of accounts for functioning as the power of attorney of the plaintiffs till 16.07.2008 and to hold enquiry to determine the actual amount due to the plaintiffs from the 1^st defendant including the difference between the actual sale price and the market value and to pass final decree. To declare that the proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 25.05.2009 in No.3436/A1/2009 are null and void and beyond jurisdiction and consequential permanent injunction restraining respondents 3 and 4 from registering any sale deed relating to suit A and B schedule properties. To declare the sale deed dated 23.03.2009 executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of 2^nd defendant is not valid and not binding on the plaintiffs, decree for mandatory injunction directing the 1^st defendant to hand over to the 1^st plaintiff the original title documents Doc. No. 817 of 1990 dated 24.09.1990 and Document No. 818 of 1990 to the 2^nd plaintiff and costs.

4.(i) The brief facts as stated in the plaint is that the plaintiffs had purchased the suit properties in two registered sale deed dated 24.09.1990 separately in each plaintiff's name. The first two survey numbers are covered under the sale deed of the 1^st plaintiff and all other survey numbers are covered under the sale deed of the 2^nd plaintiff. The 1^st and 2^nd plaintiff are in-laws and related. Since the 1^st plaintiff through his father had some experience in the real estate business the 2^nd plaintiff gave power of attorney to the 1^st plaintiff in respect of his purchased properties and the 1^st plaintiff combined the properties and formed layout namely “Aathi Kamatchi Nagar” which is approved by the Director of Town Planning and also Chinnalapatti Town Panchayat dated 24.11.1999. The 1^st plaintiff had sold many plots as power of attorney of the 2^nd plaintiff during the month of November and December 1999. Since the 1^st plaintiff was also having business activities in Chennai and had been frequently travelling, he gave power of attorney to the 1^st defendant on 02.12.1999 for selling the house plots. The 1^st defendant has been a close associate of the 1^st plaintiff's father hence the 1^st plaintiff had trust on him and reposted great confidence on him. The plaintiffs have decided to entrust the sale of plots belonging to both to one person hence the power of attorney in favour of the 1^st plaintiff was cancelled by the 2^nd plaintiff in turn given to 1^st defendant on 25.02.2001. The original title documents were entrusted to the 1^st defendant at that time itself so as to be available readily for perusal and examination by the intending purchasers. The 1^st defendant has maintained two accounts and furnished the same as and when demanded by the plaintiffs.

4.(ii) Thereafter, for many years till 2008, whenever the 1^st plaintiff came over to Dindigul and met the 1^st defendant enquired about the sale of plots, the 1^st defendant would reply no plots could be sold for profitabl