SYED ABDUL KHADER versus RAMI REDDY & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 424 · Decided: 29-11-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. SHINGAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
424 
SYED ABDUL KHADER 
v. 
RAMI REDDY & ORS. 
November 29, 1978 
[P. N. SHJNGHAL AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.] 
Poivers of Attorney Act, 1882 (7 of 1882), s. 2-Three principals if could 
jointly constitute an agent by a 'power of artorney'-Construction-Surroundinq 
circ111nsta11ccs if could be taken for ascertaining the intention of the parties. 
Code of Cit·il Procedure 1908 (Act 5 of 1908) Or. 41 r. 27-IVo right con-
/erred on a party to produce ndditional eridt'nce-Only court hearinR action has 
jurisdiction to pennit. 
Tran<fer of Property A ct 1882 ( 4 of 1882) s. 41 & Tmsts A ct 1882 (2 of 
1882)-s. 82-Bennrni Transaction-Ingredients of. 
The plaintiff (appellant), his father and step brother were owners of lands 
1n a village irr the former State of Hyderabad. 
Coming to know that the two 
D 
brothers and father were contemplating to migrate to Pakistan, defendant No. i 
suggested to the plaintiff that he would manage their properties but that since 
he \Vas Oot in good health, a nominal power of attorney might be granted in 
favour of defendant No. 34. 
The po1,ver of attorney (Ext. Pl) was granted tc 
defendant 34 by all of them. It \vas later supplemented by another dee<l (Ext. 
P2). 
The plaintiff alleged that sometime thereafter he realised that the two 
defend<'lnL'> in collusion \VitR each other transferred his lands to c!hers for no 
E 
c:onsidcratiop or inadequate consideration and that thereby a fraud v.·~.s perpe-
trated upon him by the defendanl<;. 
Thereupon. 
it was further alleged, the 
plaintiff and his brother published in the ne\vspaper5 and the olT1cial gazette a 
notice (.'ancelling the power of attorney granted to defendant No. 34. 
The 
plaintiff sued the defendants for recovery of possession of lands and certaiil 
other te:ieihs. 
F 
The defendants on the other hand claimed that the two docun1ents being 
G 
valid, the plaintiff could not resile from them. 
They also alleged that the plain-
tifT \Vas not the full and absolute O\vner of the lands but was a benarnidar. 
The trial court dismissed the plainti!I"s suit holding that the documents were, 
valid: The High Court upheld the trial court's order. It he,vever held that the 
plaintiff \yas the absolute owner of the suit properties. 
Dismissing the appeals, 
HELD: l(a) There is no force in the contention that it is impern1issib~e for 
three persons to jointly grant a power of attorney in favour of defendant no. 34. 
Co~l'Jrincipals may jointly appoint an agent to act for them and in such a case 
they become jointly liable to him and may jointly sue hinl. 
f430C, F] 
H 
\ b) The relation of agency arises when one person, called the agent, has 
authority to act on behalf of another called the principal and consents so to act. 
The relationship has its genesis in con~ract. In order to show that it ic; imper-
y 
s. A. KHADER v. R. REDDY (Desai,!.) 
425 
missible for three principals to jointly constitute an agent by a common power 
A 
of attorney it should be shown that the provisions of Contract Act or the general 
Jaw of contract have been violated by such a contract. 
[430E] 
In the instant case there is no such violation. 
Halsbury's L'lws of England Vol. 1 4th Edn. para 726 referred to. 
2. There is no force in the contention that since the two, documents confer a 
B 
joint power of attorney in respect of propert:es of the three co-principals, the 
agent could look after the joint properties of the donors alone and not their 
individual affairs. 
What a power of attorney authorises depends on its terms 
and the purroses for which it was exe-cuted. 
Where oomeone other than the 
perso11 \Vho has the right to act in respect of certain things, has under a con-
tract of agency, the right to act on behalf of the principal, the authority con-
ferred by the written instrument has to be strictly construed. 
Ordinarily the 
power of attorney is construed strictly by courts. It is equally we11 established 
that in considering a contract it is legitimate to take into account the surrounding 
circumstances for ascertaining the intention of the· parties. 
[430H, 431A, 431 H-
432A, Fl 
Bryant, Powis and Bryant Ltd. v. La Banque du Peuple, 1893 A.C. 170 rit 177, 
c 
Modi & Co. v. Unlon of' India, [1963] 2 SCR 565; referred to. 
D 
In the instant case in Ext. Pl at three places the expressions used ;ire "our 
power of attorney to act on our behalf and we empower the said pers.on''. "on our 
behalf in all departments'', and lastly, "acts done and effe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.