SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 14251

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SARATH, J
Mohan Sudan Kanake – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
W.P.No.3622 of 2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri S. Chandra Sekhar
For the Respondents: Smt S. Sravanthi, Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration

A Power of Attorney labeled as irrevocable can be revoked if not coupled with an interest, despite the inclusion of the term 'irrevocable' in the document.

Headnote:(A) Indian Contract Act, 1982 - Section 202 - Registration Act - Irrevocable General Power of Attorney - The petitioners challenged the revocation of an Irrevocable Power of Attorney executed in their favor on grounds of lack of notice and financial consideration, asserting the revocation was arbitrary and illegal. The court held that a mere use of the term 'irrevocable' does not prevent such powers from being revoked if not coupled with an interest. Dismissal of writ petition ordered. (Paras 3, 6, 7)

(B) Legal Notice - The importance of issuing a legal notice before revocation was emphasized as a procedural requirement under the registration rules. (Para 5).

Table of Content
1. revocation of power of attorney (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments on cancellation without notice (Para 4)
3. legal basis for revocation of power of attorney (Para 5 , 6)
4. writ petition dismissal (Para 8)

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in registering the deed of revocation of Irrevocable General Power of Attorney vide document No.30/2015 dated 29.12.2015 executed by the respondent No.4 without the knowledge of petitioners in contravention of Section 202 of Indian Contract Act, 1982 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri S. Chandra Sekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.4 and her son have executed Irrevocable Registered General Power of Attorney dated 06.08.2015 before the office of the respondent No.3 vide document No.22/2015 appointing the petitioners as Joint General Power of Attorneys for the works relating to grant of compensation by Indian Railways in respect of the acquired land of the respondent No.4 and other works relating to eviction of encroachers. The respondent No.4 got issued a legal notice dated 19.12.2015 to the petitioners to stop all acts pursuant to the document dated 06.08.2015 and also executed revocation of irrevocable GPA deed dated 29.12.2015 vide document No.30/2015 without issuing any notice of revocation. He further submits that as per Rule 26(i) K(i) of Telangana Registration Rules, before any deed of cancellation is admitted to registration, the registering authority shall ensure that the parties to the deed which is sought to be cancelled have consented for cancellation and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no right to execute the cancellation deed to the petitioners. He further submits that as per Circular Memo No.G1/CAN/4028/2010 dated 31.03.2010 issued by the C & IG (R & S), Hyderabad, no registering officer shall register a deed of revocation-cum-cancellation of GPA in the absence of express contract under Section 202 of Indian Contract Act, 1972 and requested to allow the writ petition.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration submits that the respondent No.4 has executed Irrevocable Registered General Power of Attorney in favour of petitioners on 06.08.2015 and the same was simple General Power of Attorney and it can be revocable as there is no mention about the interest or consideration paid by the petitioners in favour of the respondent No.4 and there is no bar for cancellation and moreover, no reasons are mentioned for executing the document by stating that as Irrevocable General Power of Attorney. In view of the same, the said document is not within the meaning of Irrevocable General Power of Attorney and the respondent authorities have rightly permitted the respondent No.4 for cancellation of the said Irrevocable General Power of Attorney in Document No.30 of 2015 executed by the respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioners and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

5. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are questioning the action of the respondents in revocation of Irrevocable General Power of Attorney executed in their favour by the respondent No.4 on 06.08.2015. In the said document, there is no mention about the interest accorded by the petitioners herein and the same was simple power of attorney. Before revocation, the respondent No.4 has issued a legal notice to petitioners on 19.12.2015 and in response to the same, the petitioners have issued reply notice on 07.01.2016. In the irrevocable General Power of Attorney, in the legal notice or reply notice, there is no mention about consideration of amount paid by the petitioners to the respondent No.4. In the writ affidavit also, the petitioners have not mentioned about the payment details to the respondent No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top