Karnataka High Court
Shri. Yallappa S/O Laxman Zangaruche vs Shri. Narayan Shattuppa Zangaruche on 9 December, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BEN CH
DATED THIS THE 9 T H DAY OF D ECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.J USTICE AS HOK S. KINAGI
W.P.No.105281/2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
1. SHRI. YALLAPPA S/O LAXMAN ZANGARUCHE,
AG:.46 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SONOLI VILLAGE
TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI
2. SHRI. PARASHARAM S/O LAXMAN ZANGARUCHE,
AGE:49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SONOLI VILLAGE,
TAL AND DIST. BELAGAVI
3 . SHRI. VAIJU S/O LAXMAN ZANGARUCHE,
AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SONOLI VILLAGE,
TAL AND DIST. BELAGAVI
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SMT P G NAIK, ADV.)
AND
SHRI. NARAYAN SHATTUPPA ZANGARUCHE,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SONOLI VILLAGE,
TAL AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADV.)
-2-
THIS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A.NO.IV PASSED ON 03.08.2018 IN
O.S.NO.1326/2014 BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC,
BELAGAVI, AT ANNEXURE-E AND I.A.NO.IV FILED IN
O.S.NO.1326/2014 BE KINDLY DISMISSED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners challenging the order dated 03.08.2018 passed on I.A.No.IV in O.S.No.1326/2014 by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Belagavi, filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioners are that the respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.1326/2014 seeking the relief of specific performance of contract of sale and injunction against the petitioners before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Belagavi. After the issuance of notice, the petitioners appeared and filed their written statement in the said suit. When the case was set up for plaintiff/respondent's evidence, the respondent filed an application in I.A.No.IV under Order III Rule 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to lead the evidence through his power of attorney holder on the -3- ground that he is facing health problems and doctor has adviced him not to move from the house. It is stated in the affidavit filed along with the application that the respondent had appointed his brother as his power of attorney holder and he is competent to give evidence and conduct the case. The petitioners filed objections to the said application contending that the power of attorney holder cannot depose in place of and instead of Principal i.e., plaintiff. The plaintiff alone has personal knowledge of the suit. The petitioners denied that the respondent is facing health problems as he has not produced any material to substantiate the same and prayed to dismiss the application.
3. The Trial Court after hearing both the sides, allowed the application and permitted the power of attorney holder to proceed with the case on behalf of the plaintiff. The petitioners, assailing the order passed by the trial Court, filed this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo reporting the death of the respondent/plaintiff on 18.01.2019 -4- and submits and in view of his death, the writ petition does not survive for consideration.
5. Perused the records.
6. The respondent has executed a power of attorney in favour of his brother. The respondent filed an application seeking permission to conduct the case through power of attorney holder. But the respondent who had executed the power of attorney holder has died on 18.01.2019. As per Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the power of attorney terminates on the death of the executant. Section 201 reads as follows:
201. Termination of agency.--An agency is terminated by the principal revoking his authority, or by the agent renouncing the business of the agency;
or by the business of the agency being completed; or by either the principal or agent dying or becoming of unsound mind; or by the principal being adjudicated an insolvent under the provisions of any Act for the time being in force for the relief of insolvent debtors. -5-
7. Section 201 provides that an agency get terminated by the principal revoking his authority or by the principal or agent dying. The power of attorney comes to an end on the death of the principal and the agency gets terminated. Therefore, the power of attorney holder has no right to conduct the case after the death of principal.
8. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is disposed of.
9. In view of disposal of writ petition, pending Interlocutory Application does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE Naa