Irrevocable power of attorney requires a secured interest in the property; mere agreement to sell does not transfer title.

A general power of attorney becomes irrevocable under Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 only where the agent has a legally secured interest in the subject-matter of the agency and the authority is given to protect that interest. Mere contemporaneous execution of a power of attorney and agreement to sell, or a recital that the authority is irrevocable, does not by itself create title in immovable property. An agreement to sell also does not transfer ownership. Where no such interest exists, the authority ends on the principal's death and a later sale deed executed by the attorney cannot convey valid title. In an injunction suit, title may still be examined if it is directly linked to possession and the relief claimed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the holder of the general power of attorney, read with the agreement to sell, had any right, title or interest in the subject-matter of the agency so as to execute a registered sale deed after the death of the principal. (ii) Whether the suit for injunction filed by the respondent required a separate challenge to the general power of attorney, the agreement to sell, and the later sale deed in favour of the appellants.

Issue (i): Whether the holder of the general power of attorney, read with the agreement to sell, had any right, title or interest in the subject-matter of the agency so as to execute a registered sale deed after the death of the principal.

Analysis: A power of attorney operates within the law of agency. An agency becomes irrevocable under Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 only when the agent has an interest in the subject-matter of the agency itself and the authority is given to secure that interest. Mere contemporaneity of the power of attorney and agreement to sell, or the use of the word irrevocable, does not by itself create such an interest. The documents in question did not disclose that the attorney had a secured proprietary interest in the property. An agreement to sell also does not, by itself, convey title in immovable property. Since no such interest was established and the agency was not one coupled with interest, the authority ended with the death of the principal. The later sale deed executed by the holder after the principal's death could not confer valid title.

Conclusion: The holder had no enforceable right or interest to execute the sale deed after the principal's death, and the appellants' claim of title failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit for injunction filed by the respondent required a separate challenge to the general power of attorney, the agreement to sell, and the later sale deed in favour of the appellants.

Analysis: In a suit for injunction, title may be examined where possession depends directly and substantially on title and appropriate issues are framed. Here, the respondent's possession and claim to ownership were supported by registered conveyances, while the appellants' asserted title was rejected on merits. In those circumstances, the absence of a separate declaratory suit or an additional specific prayer did not affect the respondent's case. The court was entitled to decide the title question as it was integral to the relief of injunction and possession.

Conclusion: A separate challenge to the earlier instruments was not obligatory for the respondent to succeed in the injunction suit.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the appellant's title was rejected, the respondent's possession and title were upheld, and the appeal failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: An agency is irrevocable under Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 only when the agent has a legally secured interest in the subject-matter of the agency, and a mere agreement to sell or recital of irrevocability does not, without registration where required, confer title in immovable property.

---