1950 (12) TMI 29 - HC - Indian Laws

Power of Attorney Scope: Agent lacked authority to engage advocate in court. Appeal dismissed.

PM Desappa Nayanim Varu Versus Ramabhaktula Ramiah

The appeal was against the dismissal of a suit due to issues with the presentation of the plaint under a power of attorney. The court determined that the ... - Issues:- Validity of presentation of plaint under power of attorney- Authority conferred by power of attorney to engage an advocate and conduct a suit in a specific courtIssue 1: Validity of presentation of plaint under power of attorneyThe appeal in this case was against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Chitoor dismissing the suit filed by the appellants due to an issue with the presentation of the plaint. The suit was initially filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupathi but was returned as the subject-matter exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of that court. The plaint was then represented in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Chitoor, by a different power of attorney agent. The defendants contended that the new agent did not have the authority under the power of attorney to engage an advocate or conduct the suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court. The Subordinate Judge accepted this contention and dismissed the suit, leading to the appeal.Issue 2: Authority conferred by power of attorney to engage an advocate and conduct a suit in a specific courtThe main question in this appeal revolved around whether the power of attorney given by the plaintiffs authorized the new agent to conduct the suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Chittoor. The principles governing the construction of a power of attorney were cited, emphasizing that powers of attorney must be strictly pursued and construed to give only the authority expressly or by necessary implication. The power of attorney in question specifically empowered the agent to conduct a particular suit pending in a particular court. The document did not explicitly grant the authority to engage the attorney for conducting litigation generally regarding the properties in the plaint. The argument that such power should be inferred by necessary implication was rejected, as the parties did not expressly confer such power, and it was not assumed they contemplated any jurisdictional issues when filing the suit. The court concluded that the agent did not have the authority, under the power of attorney, to institute and conduct the suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Chittoor. Therefore, the Subordinate Judge's decision to dismiss the suit was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.