MUTHARASU THEVAR Vs. MAYANDI THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent in the lower Court is the petitioner before me. During the pendency of an appeal in the District Court, Ramanathapuram, respondents 1 to 7 and 9 in the said appeal filed an application under O. 3, R. 4, Civil P. C. , to revoke the vakalat given by their power-of-attorney agent Muthuraja Thevar, tot he advocate now on record in the Court as above are hereinafter referred to by me as principals. Muthuraja Thevar will be referred to as the agent. The principals under ex. A-1, dated 29-7-1961, appointed an against to be in charge of their family litigation. Even by the time Ex. A-1 was executed, the agent incurred certain expenses on behalf of the principals to conduct certain proceedings under S. 145, crl. P. C. , before the Revenue Divisional Officer. In consideration of such services in the past and the initiate further legal proceedings in connection with the family and its properties, the principals appointed the agent under a general power-ofattorney dated 29-7-1961. A translation of the same is extracted as it would be necessary in the case.

(2.) THE power-of-attorney was cancelled by the principals as they alleged that they lost confidence in their agent. It is also specifically alleged that the agent has not accounted for a sum of Rs. 700 which he has drawn from Court and which represented the costs of the suit originally instituted by the agent on behalf of the principals. The agent, however, took up the position that on a fair reading of the power-of-attorney subsisting in his favour, it is irrevocable as it should be deemed to be and is coupled with an interest within the meaning of S. 202 of the Indian contract Act.

(3.) THE primary question argued before me is whether such an agency as contemplated in Ex. A-1, which is the power-of-attorney is irrevocable.