P M DESAPPA NAYANIM VARU Vs. RAMABHAKTULA RAMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chitoor dismissing the suit filed by the appellants on the ground that the presentation of the plaint was not valid.

(2.) The suit was originally instituted in the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupathi. The plaint was signed by one G. Kanniah as the power of attorney agent of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and he also gave a vakalat in that capacity to an advocate practising in that Court. The District Munsif returned the plaint as he found that the subject-matter of the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. The plaint so returned was represented in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Chitoor. One Narayanaswami Naidu claiming to be the power of attorney agent of plaintiffs 1 and 2 gave a fresh vakalat to the advocate on 2-61945 and it was duly accepted by him. The defendants raised the contention that under the power of attorney given to Narayanaswami Naidu, no power was conferred on him to engage an advocate or conduct a suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the contention of the defendants and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.

(3.) The only question that arises in this appeal is whether, under the power of attorney given by plaintiffs 1 and 2 to Narayanaswami Naidu, he was authorised to conduct the suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Chittoor. The principle governing the construction of a power of attorney are succinctly stated in Bowstead on Agency (sixth edition). The learned author says as follows at page 73. "Powers of attorney must be strictly pursued, and are construed as giving only such authority as they confer expressly or by necessary implication. The following are the most important rules of construction :