P. Somarajan, J.

1. The challenge is against the order in I.A. No.2474 of 2012 dated 23.01.2013 (Ext.P4) in O.S. No.192 of 2011 of the Sub Court, North Paravur by the second defendant.

2. A preliminary objection was raised regarding correctness of the valuation made in the suit and the court fee paid along with the question of bar of limitation. The said application was dismissed by the lower court finding that the suit is not, barred by limitation and that the valuation made in the suit and the court fee paid are proper. The above said order is under challenge in this petition.

3. Heard Sri. K.V. Sohan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. V.M. Kurian, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. The suit is for declaring two registered sale deeds as null and void. These two documents were executed by the power holder of the plaintiff, the first defendant, based on a registered power of attorney, in favour of the second defendant. The question regarding correctness of the valuation made in the suit and the court fee paid was not pressed at the time of hearing of the application The main contention raised by the plaintiff is that he came to know about the execution of the sale deeds only on a subsequent date and as such the suit was filed within a period of three years from the date of notice.

5. The questions came up for consideration are (1) Whether the notice of execution of registered deed of conveyance or an act done by the power of attorney holder would amount to notice to the Principal? (2) Whether the date of actual notice to the Principal have any relevance in the matter of limitation in challenging the acts and deeds done by the power holder? and (3) Is there any exception to the principle of constructive notice regarding Principal and Agent? and (4) what would be the effect of first and second limbs of the interpretation clause "a person is said to have notice" in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in relation to Principal and Agent?

6. It is by virtue of a power of attorney the first defendant had executed two sale deeds in favour of the second defendant for and on behalf of the Principal. The acts which were done by the power holder perfectly in tune with the authority granted under a power of attorney would be binding on the Principal as if the same were done by the Principal in person. It is an admitted case of fir execution of a power of attorney by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant. It is also not in dispute that the power holder has exercised only the authority given under the power of attorney at the time of execution of the two sale deeds. As far It as executant of a registered document is concerned, the person who executed the document would have notice of its execution and registration from the date of its execution and registration and the first limb of the interpretation clause "a person is said to have notice" would come into play as the fact of execution and registration is known to him from the date of its execution and registration. The two sale deeds were admittedly executed by the power holder/first defendant for and on behalf of the Principal/Plaintiff.

7. The Principal cannot avoid the authority given to the power holder to do certain acts or deeds for transfer of immovable property after its execution in the tune with the authority. The acts which were done by the power holder would be binding on the Principal as if it were done by the Principal in person and that the notice of agent/power holder would amount to notice of Principal unless there is an active concealment of the acts done by the power holder/agent, as the case may be. The active concealment of an act done by the agent/power holder against the Principal is the only exception to the general rule that the notice to the agent/power holder would amount to notice to the Principal. When there is an active concealment so as to deprive the Principal from taking notice of or kno