The revocation of power of attorney must be communicated to the agent and third parties to be effective; failure to do so renders subsequent transactions valid.

JUDGMENT :

N. Sathish Kumar J.

Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the Trial Court granting declaration in respect of Flat No.1 and dismissing other reliefs and also dismissing the suit in entirety in respect of Flat No.2, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant.

2. Brief background of the appeal is as follows:

2.a. The plaintiff has purchased the suit properties in a public auction conducted under SARFAESI by the HDFC Bank and he became the successful bidder for two flats for a total amount of Rs.30 lakhs and the sale certificate is also registered in the name of the plaintiff on 03.11.2008. The flats were vacant at the time of inspection by the plaintiff. After registration of the sale certificate, when the plaintiff went to the suit properties, a group of men led by the first defendant claiming to be a political leader tried to barge into the flats. The first defendant claimed that the flats belong to him and he threatened the plaintiff and did not leave the flats. The plaintiff gave a complaint to the police which is registered as CSR.No.476/2008 dated 19.11.2008. The first defendant thereafter illegally broke open the two flats and the police officials did not take action. As the plaintiff is employed as a marine mechanic in a private company on contract has purchased the flats with his hard earned money, finally, the first defendant informed that he will give back possession of one flat, i.e., F1 provided that the plaintiff permits the first defendant to sell F2 flat. The first defendant also promised that he will pay the plaintiff Rs.34 lakhs out of the sale proceeds when sells F2 flat. The plaintiff was compelled to agree to this proposal since the police did not take action on the report of the plaintiff. The plaintiff gave a power of attorney dated 10.12.2008 to the first defendant permitting the first defendant to sell F2 flat. After registration of the power of attorney for F2m the first defendant gave possession of F1 flat to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did repair works in F1 spending about Rs.3 lakhs.

2.b. The plaintiff came to know that the first defendant has registered a sale agreement for Flat F2 on 10.12.2008 itself based on the strength of the power of attorney to the second defendant. The second defendant is an employee under the first defendant. When the plaintiff questioned the illegal act, the first defendant did not answer properly, therefore, the plaintiff revoked the power of attorney on 28.01.2009 and duly intimated the first defendant by way of registered post on 29.01.2009. Though the first defendant has knowledge about the cancellation of the power deed, the first defendant had executed a registered sale deed with respect to Flat F2 in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff enquired the first defendant and informed that he will take police action. Afraid of the police prosecution, the first defendant gave two cheques each for Rs.17 lakhs to the plaintiff totalling to a sum of Rs.34 lakhs and requested the plaintiff not to approach the police. The two cheques which were given to the plaintiff was bounced as the first defendant instructed his banker to STOP PAYMENT. The action of the first defendant amounts to land grabbing. The sale in favour of the second defendant by the first defendant is invalid in the eye of law and it is null and void. No consideration was passed. The sale deed dated 24.03.2009 in favour of the second defendant is a sham and nominal document since the power holder/the first defendant has knowledge about the revocation of the power deed. Therefore, it is the contention that the defendants 1 and 2 in order to enrich themselves with criminal intention to d