Power coupled with interest cannot be revoked unilaterally; ineffective notice of cancellation preserves the agent's sale deed.

A power of attorney executed after receipt of consideration, delivery of possession and handing over of title deeds is treated as a power coupled with interest and is not revocable at will. Where cancellation is asserted, effective communication of revocation must be proved; mere certificate of posting or an inadequate publication may be insufficient, and a sale deed executed by the agent may remain valid if revocation is not duly established. A suit seeking cancellation of a registered sale deed and related declaration requires proper court fee on the relief of cancellation, and failure to pay it can render the suit not maintainable in the form framed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the power of attorney executed in favour of the appellant was a power coupled with interest and therefore not liable to be cancelled unilaterally. (ii) Whether cancellation of the power of attorney was duly intimated to the appellant and the subsequent sale deed executed by the power agent was valid. (iii) Whether the suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed and related declaration was maintainable without payment of proper court fee.

Issue (i): Whether the power of attorney executed in favour of the appellant was a power coupled with interest and therefore not liable to be cancelled unilaterally.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the first plaintiff had executed an earlier unregistered sale transaction, received the sale consideration, delivered possession, and handed over title deeds before executing the registered power of attorney. The admitted and expert-proved signatures on the documents supported the conclusion that the underlying transaction was real. On those facts, the authority granted to the appellant was not a bare agency but was connected with an existing interest in the property.

Conclusion: The power of attorney was a power coupled with interest and could not be revoked at will.

Issue (ii): Whether cancellation of the power of attorney was duly intimated to the appellant and the subsequent sale deed executed by the power agent was valid.

Analysis: The alleged intimation was only by certificate of posting, which was not satisfactorily proved. The publication relied on by the plaintiffs did not refer to cancellation of the power of attorney and was made after the sale deed. In these circumstances, the cancellation was not shown to have been communicated in a legally effective manner. Since the power remained operative, the sale deed executed by the appellant as power agent could not be invalidated on that ground.

Conclusion: The cancellation was not duly proved to have been intimated, and the sale deed executed by the appellant was valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed and related declaration was maintainable without payment of proper court fee.

Analysis: The relief sought was in substance aimed at setting aside a registered instrument executed through the power of attorney. In such a situation, proper court fee was required on the relief of cancellation, and the plaintiffs had not paid court fee on that basis. The trial and appellate courts failed to notice this defect.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable in the form in which it was framed without proper court fee.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings of the courts below were set aside, the second appeal was allowed, and the plaintiffs' suit stood dismissed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: A power of attorney supported by prior transfer of consideration, delivery of possession, and handing over of title deeds creates an interest protected by Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, and it cannot be revoked unilaterally without effective notice; a sale deed executed under such authority remains valid unless the revocation is duly proved.

---