https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184180 A power of attorney executed by three co-principals was construed to authorise one agent to deal with each principal's separate lands, including sale, because agency depends on the instrument's terms and surrounding circumstances. The sale authority was not confined to litigation or debt-related transactions, and the transfers were binding where the plaintiff knew of and acquiesced in them. The plaintiff was not proved to be a benamidar, as the essential ingredients of benami were absent. The High Court properly admitted additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, and the compromise with some respondents did not defeat the controversy as to the remaining respondents. The challenge to recovery of possession therefore failed. en-us Wed, 29 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jul 2016 14:13:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184180 A power of attorney executed by three co-principals was construed to authorise one agent to deal with each principal's separate lands, including sale, because agency depends on the instrument's terms and surrounding circumstances. The sale authority was not confined to litigation or debt-related transactions, and the transfers were binding where the plaintiff knew of and acquiesced in them. The plaintiff was not proved to be a benamidar, as the essential ingredients of benami were absent. The High Court properly admitted additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, and the compromise with some respondents did not defeat the controversy as to the remaining respondents. The challenge to recovery of possession therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184180