CHAMI NARAYANAN Vs. V R KRISHNA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed impugning the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. Sub-Judge, Palakkad in O.S. No. 238 of 1979. One Chami Narayanan-defendant is the appellant. One Krishna Iyer represented by his Power of Attorney holder Veeraraghava Iyer is the first plaintiff and supplemental plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the wife and daughters of Krishna Iyer, who are Respondents 2 to 4 in this appeal.

(2.) The common grounds of both the appellant and the respondents are as follows : Suit was originally filed by Veeraraghava Iyer representing as Attorney of Krishna Iyer for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,004/- borrowed by the appellant by executing Ext. A-1 promissory note dated 26-7-1976. Apart from the above common grounds of both the sides, it is the further contention of the respondents that prior to the execution of Ext. A-1 pronote, Krishna Iyer executed Ext. A-2 general power deed dated 5-5-1975. Krishna Iyer left his family in the year 1977 and his whereabouts were not known for more than 7 years. However, once he was seen by Veeraraghava Iyer, the Attorney. When the period of limitation for claiming the amount under the pronote was nearing, Veeraraghava Iyer in his capacity as donee of the power conferred on him under Ext. A-2 filed the suit before the expiry of the period of limitation. It is also the admitted grounds as culled out from the records that the suit was originally dismissed by the Court below holding that the donee of the power, Veeraraghava Iyer, is not clothed with the right of laying a claim under the pronote. Aggrieved by the judgment of dismissal of the suit, an appeal was preferred before this Court as A.S. No. 422 of 1982. This Court remanded the matter to the Court below for fresh trial with a direction to render a finding on the validity of the power deed, Ext. A-2, after framing an issue in that regard. After remand, an application was moved by the power holder, Veeraraghava Iyer, to implead the wife and daughters of Krishna Iyer as Suppl. plaintiffs. That application, I.A. 2948 of 1990, was allowed and the wife and children were brought on record as suppl. plaintiffs 2 to 4. No civil revision was filed questioning the above order of impleadment of suppl. plaintiffs. The Court below thereafter, assessing the evidence, decreed the suit on 21-12-1990. Mr. V. Chitambaresh, learned counsel for the appellant denying the above contentions of the respondents would contend that the power deed Ext. A-2 would confer only a specific authority on the donee of the power, Veeraraghava Iyer, that it does not authorise Veeraraghava Iyer to lay the present claim under the suit pronote, that suppl. plaintiffs 2 to 4 were not brought on record in accordance with the rule of law, namely when they were brought on record, the claim itself was barred by limitation, that there is no necessity to challenge the order passed in the impleading application by way of a civil revision before this Court, that on the other hand it is enough in questioning the said order in this appeal as provided under Section 105, C.P.C. and that viewed from any angle, the judgment and decree rendered by the Court below cannot be sustained.

(3.) It is, on the other hand, the contention of Shri N. Viswanatha Iyer, learned counsel for the respondents that a bare reading of Ext. A-2 power deed would disclose that it is a general power deed which authorises the donee of the power to lay the present claim under the suit pronote. Even when a specific authority is not conferred on Veeraraghava Iyer in regard to the filing of the present suit under the pronote, on the moral duty cast upon him he can protect the interest of the donor of the power and also preserve the right of the donor over his property from being injured, on the doctrine of 'agency by necessity'. Thus on any angle when this matter is considered, the action of Veeraraghava Iyer in filing the suit under the pronote comes within the purview of the authority conferred on him under the power deed.