BOMMISETTI VASUNDHARA Vs. PACHIPULUSU SUBRAHMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Application was filed by the third plaintiff Bommisetti Vasundhara, wife of the first plaintiff Bommisetti Varadarajan (died) to revoke the Vakalath given to Mr. R. Krishnaswami, Advocate for the present applicant (third plaintiff). THE plaintiffs 1 and 2, Bommisetty Varadarajan and Pachipeelusu Subrahmanyam appointed and retained Mr. M.A. Venkatakrishna as their lawful attorney to do the following acts, deeds and things:

(2.) ON the same date, the third plaintiff entered into an Agreement with her power of Attorney Agent Mr. M.A. Venkatakrishna with reference to the agreement of sale executed by her husband in favour of Mr. M.A. Venkata Krishna on 3-12-1980 with the following alterations:

(3.) THE petitioner filed a reply affidavit through M.V. Krupasagar and Rangabashyam Advocates. THE petitioner denied the allegations contained in the counter affidavit and stated that the Power of Attorney is not coupled with interest, that the power of attorney is not coupled with interest, that the power of attorney given by her is very specific, that the General Power of Attorney Agent has obtained the power only to prosecute the proceedings and that since it is not coupled with interest, the petitioner can revoke the power given to him to conduct the suit proceedings at any point of time. According to her, the agreement of sale cannot create any interest to Mr. M.A. Venkatakrishna in the suit property, which is a false document and having no legal sanctity. It is now created to prolong the litigation and to cause loss and damage to the petitioner. In any event a Power Agent cannot dictate terms to the Principal. THE Power Agent has to act only as per the instructions of the principal and the power delegated to him and when the principal is not interested to continue the litigation, she cannot be forced by others to continue the litigation against her will.