This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 14.3.2008 made in IA.No.324/2006 in OS.No.167/1970 by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tiruchirapalli.
2. The 8th defendant is the petitioner herein. The 1st respondent has filed the above said suit under Section 70 of the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Act for setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent/1st defendant made in AP.No.41/1996 confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Thanjavur made in OA.No.16/1961 dated 22.1.1966. The suit has been filed by the Power of Attorney agent N.Srinivasachariar. Pending the suit one R.Krishnaswamy has filed an affidavit on behalf of the 1st respondent/plaintiff in IA.No.324/2006 seeking permission to recognise him as Power Agent of the plaintiff and to represent on behalf of the 1st respondent/ plaintiff by stating that he has been given with power to represent and conduct the suit on behalf of the 1st respondent.
3. The said application has been resisted by the petitioner/ 8th defendant contending that no affidavit has been filed in the application for leave to appear as agent either by the Principal or the Power of Attorney holder to prove the existence of power in favour of R.Krishnasamy and also a statement to show that the alleged power is still in force. Secondly, there is no reference about the death of earlier Power of Attorney and subsequent appointment of the present agent and thirdly, there is no specific claim to continue the suit in the power and there is no specific clause in the power deed authorising him to appear and prosecute, as the power has been given only to the administration of the property relating to the Ahobila Mutt of the 1st respondent.
4. The trial court has allowed the application and aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. Pending this Civil Revision Petition, one S.Rajagopalan has been appointed in the place of R.Krishnasamy and the Power of Attorney deed has been produced. Originally the suit was filed by N.Srinivasachariar and on his death, Krishnasamy has been appointed as Power Agent by a Power of Attorney deed dated 12.4.2000. The plaintiff has filed the application in IA.No.324/2006 with an affidavit sworn in by the said Krishnasamy seeking permission to represent on behalf the plaintiff and he has also filed the power deed dated 12.4.2000 along with the said petition.
5. The power of attorney deed dated 12.4.2000 executed by the plaintiff has conferred on the attorney very wide powers and he was authorised to act, conduct and manage all affairs of the executant and the general power conferred under the deed further clarified that the powers given under the deed were to be given the widest interpretation and the power to conduct the present case on behalf of the plaintiff is implied.
6. The relevant portion of the power of attorney is as below:- @2000 MtJ tUlk; vg;uy; khjk; 12 Mk; njjp jh;kg[hp $py;yh fpUc;&zfphp efuk;. f;Uc;&zd; nfhtpy; !e;epjpj;bjU _r';fuklj;jpy; Kfhkpy; vGe;jUspapUf;Fk; _kj; mncwhgpy klk; _yT;&kPe;U!pk;cw!;thkp !e;epjpapy; 45Mk; gl;lj;jpy; K:h;j;jhgpc&pe;juha; vGe;jUspapUf;Fk; _yT&;kpf;F !pk;cw jpt;a ghJfhn!tf _td; rlnfhg _ehuhazajPe;j;u kcwhnjc&pfdhfpa ehk;. jpUr;rp khtl;lk; _u';fk; efuk; tpUg;gl;L:h; u';fhr;rhhpahh; Fkhuh;?cUg;gl;L:h; Mh;/f;Uc&;z!;thkp f;F vGjp;fbfhLj;j b$duy; gth; Mg; ml;lh;zp vd;fpw !h;tKj;jpahh; ehkh?vd;dbtd;why;////// nkw;go brhj;Jf;fs;. Epy ghj;ak;. _!e;jpjp khpahijfs; Kjypatw;wpy; jfuhW Vw;gl;lhYk; tptfhu';fs; Vw;gl;lhYk;. Vt;tpjj;jpYk; thjpahfnth g;ujpthjpahfnth ,Ue;J elj;j ntz;oa !fy tptfhu';fspYk; rptpy;. fphpkpdy; butpd;a[o!;ohpf;l; nfhh;l; nyhfy; gz;L. ,e;j mwepiya Ml;rpj;Jiw. Efuhl;rp. khefuhl;rp Kjypa vy;yh nfhh;l;LfspYk; MgP!PfspYk; ntz;oa kDf;fs;. Vjph;kDf;fs;/ gpbsapz;Lfs;. hpl;lh;d;fs;. !;nll;bkz;Lfs; Kjyhditfspy; ekf;F gjpyhf ek rhh;gpy; ePh; ifbaGj;J nghlt[k;. cWjpbkhHp _ rlnfhg _.H.H.THE JEER OF SRI AHOBILA MUTT bfhLf;ft[k;. tf;fPy;fs; ml;tnfl;Lfs;. ml;lh;dpfs; epakpj;J tf;fhyj;J bfhLf;ftpk;. ,d;!;l;uf;c&d; bfhLf;ftpk;. j!;jhnt$Pfs; jhf;fy; bra;at[k; j!;jhnt$Pfs; thg!; th';ft[k; ntz;oa fl;rpfis Tlt[k; ek; mDkjpapd; nghpy; uh$p bra;at[k; uh$pehkhtpy; ifbaGj;J nghlt[k; of;hpfis epiwntw;w ifbaGj;Jf;fs; bra;at[k; $g;jp thuz;Lf;F kD bfhLj;J eltof;iffs; vLj;Jf;bfhs;st[k; Vyk; nfl;ft[k;. Vyk; vLf;ft[k; nfhh;l;Lfspy; bjhif fl;lt[k; nfhh;l;Lfspy; urPJ bfhLj;J bjhiffs; th';ft[k; ,jd;K:yk; mjpfhuk; bfhLf;ffg;gl;loUf;[email protected]
7. From the above recital, it is seen that very wide powers have been given and the Power of Attorney holder is authorised to act and conduct the suit and other proceedings and it should be given wider interpretation and shall be construed as an express authority to him to act and deal with the disputes, suits and other proceedings in relation to the affairs of the plaintiff. It further authorises the attorney to settle, adjust, compromise any dispute which may arise in future.
8. The said powers conferred in the said power deed leave no room for doubt that the executant authorised the attorney to conduct the present case on its behalf. The said power is obviously implied given in the operating portion and to mere non mention of the present suit cannot justify the inference that this power was not conferred on the Authority.
9. The objection that no affidavit has been filed either by the principal or the Power of Attorney holder to prove the existence of power in force and non mention of the death of the earlier Power of Attorney does not invalidate the power given to the present power holder. At the most it can only be considered as a mere irregularity which can be rectified in the course of the trial. It is relevant to point that at present one S.Rajagopalan has been appointed as Power of Attorney by power of attorney deed dated 4.12.2008 and all such powers have been conferred on him.
10. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the objection raised by the petitioner is unsustainable and the court below is right in granting permission to the plaintiff. I do not find any illegality or infirmity to interfere with the said findings and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.
11. After pronouncement of the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present Power of Attorney submitted before this Court shall have to be adjudicated before the trial Court.
12. Hence, the respondent shall present an application before the Court to permit the plaintiff to file the present Power of Attorney, representing the plaintiff on their behalf.
Srcm To
1.The Principal Sub-Judge, Tiruchirapalli