Mathew CJ:

This case was fully argued before the trial Judge, and no points have been raised on the appeal which would cause me to disagree with the full and carefully reasoned judgment of the trial Judge.

There are only two points which need consideration:

(1) Did the plaintiff, in the power of attorney that he granted to Subramaniam Chettiar in 1937, confer the power to substitute.

(2) Did the plaintiff ratify the acts of SRMM Kasi, which he purported to perform under a power of attorney granted to him by one SRMM Periakaruppan Chettiar, who had been appointed substituted attorney by Subramaniam Chettiar

The relevant clause in the power of attorney granted to Subramaniam Chettiar reads as follows:

To concur in doing any of the acts and things herein contained with any person or persons interested in the premises.

Generally to do and perform all such acts deeds matters and things in relation to the premises as my said attorney may deem expedient as fully and effectually as I could were I personally present. And likewise to appoint one or more attorney or attorneys under him with the same or more limited powers and such attorney or attorneys to set aside or substitut