DEB RATAN BISWAS AND ORS.versusMOST. ANAND MOYI DEVI AND ORS.

                    [2011] 7 S.C.R. 303


             DEB RATAN BISWAS AND ORS.                          A
                             v.
          MOST. ANAND MOYI DEVI AND ORS.
            (Civil Appeal No. 2728 of 2006)
                      APRIL 15, 2011
                                                                B
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.151 - Appellants filed
partition suit against the respondents - Respondents had
executed General Power of Attorney in favour of two persons C
(to manage and collect rent of the immovable property but not
confeffing any right regarding title to the property) which was
registered - Parties to the suit entered into compromise -
 Trial Court passed decree in terms of the compromise -
Subsequently, Respondents filed miscellaneous petition D
through one of the attorneys ('SJ, for recalling the decree on
the allegation that the signatures on the compromise were
forged - Petition dismissed by trial court- Respondents filed
revision before High Court which was allowed - On appeal,
held: The finding of fact recorded by the trial court that there E
was no forgery was based on material on record and could
not have been validly interfered with in Civil Revision by the
High Court - The trial court rightly held that 'S' was only an
attorney and could not claim any independent capacity in the
proceedings ""'.' The principal (Respondents) signed the F
compromise for partition of the property, which in law amounts
to implied revocation of power of attorney in favour of 'S' -
Respondents cannot' be allowed to say that their own act of
signing the compromise petition was collusive and fraudulent
- The High Court observed that Respondents should have G
consulted the power of attorney 'S' before signing the
compromise petition - This is a strange kind of reasoning -
The principal is not bound to consult his attorney before
signing a compromise petition - The High Court also held
that if 'S' was not willing to sign the compromise petition his
                               303                               H
    304      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 7 S.C.R.


A unwillingness should have been mentioned in the
    compromise petition - This also is a strange reasoning - The
    impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the
    order of the trial court is restored - Contract Act, 1872 - s. 207,
    Illustration.
B
       Deeds and Documents - Power of Attorney - Execution
  of- Effect - Held: Even after execution of a power of attorney
  the principal can act independently and does not have to take
  the consent of the attorney - The attorney is only an agent of
C the principal.

       The appellants filed title suit against the respondents
  for partition of certain properties. While the partition suit
  was pending, the defendants-respondents 'P' and 'A'
  executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of 'U' and
D 'S' which was registered. The parties to the suit, including
  'P' and 'A' filed a compromise petition which was
  approved by the trial court and a decree was directed to
  be passed in terms of the compromise.

E      Subsequently, a miscellaneous petition purporting to
  be on behalf of 'P' and 'A' was filed through the attorney
  'S' under Section 151 CPC praying for recalling the said
  decree on the allegation that the signatures on the
  compromise were forged. The trial court held that
  Miscellaneous Petition filed at the instance of only one
F of the attorneys was not maintainable, as according to the
  terms of the power of attorney both the constituted
  attorneys were entrusted to act jointly. Hence, the
  miscellaneous petition filed by 'S' was dismissed. Against
  that order, the respondents filed a Civil Revision which
G was allowed by the High Court, and hence the instant
  appeal.
          Allowing the appeal, the Court
          HELD:1. The finding of fact recorded by the trial
H
 DEB RATAN BISWAS AND ORS. v. MOST. ANAND                 305
            MOYI Dli::VI AND ORS.
court after detailed discussion of the evidence was that          A
there was no forgery. This finding is based on material
on record and it is a finding of fact. Hence it could not
have been validly interfered with in Civil Revision by the
High Court. [Para 8) [307-G-H; 308-A]
     2. The trial court rightly held that 'S.' was only an        B
attorney and he cannot claim any independent capacity
in the proceedings. The principal 'P' and 'A' signed the
compromise for partition of the property, which in law
amounts to implied revocation of power of attorney in
favour of 'S' vide Illustration to Section 207 of the Indian      C
Contract Act. 'P' and 'A' cannot be allowed to say that
their own act of signing the compromise petition was
collusive and fraudulent. [Para 9) [308-B-D]
     3. The trial court went into the evidence in great detail
and recorded findings of fact which could not have been           D
interfered with by the High Court in civil revision. It is well
settled that in civil revision the jurisdiction of the High
Court is limited, and it can only go into the questions of
jurisdiction, but there is no error of jurisdiction in the
present case. [Para 10) (308-E]                                   E
    4. The High Court observed that 'P' and 'A' should
have consulted the power of attorney 'S' before signing
the compromise petition. This is a strange kind. of
reasoning. The principal is not bound to consult his· F
attorney before !!igning a compromise petition. The High
Court also held that if 'S' was not willing to sign the
compromise petition his unwillingness should have been
mentioned in the compromise petition. This also is a ·
strange reasoning. It is well-settled that even after
execution of a power of attorney the principal can act G
independently and does not have to take the consent of
the attorney. The attorney is after all only an agent of the
principal. Even after executing a power of attorney the
principal can act on his own. [Paras 11, 12] [308-F-H; 309-
~                                                                 H
    306      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 7 S.C.R.


A        5. The impugned judgment and order of the High
    Court is set aside and the order of the trial court is
    restored. [Para 13] [309-B]
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
B   2728 of 2006.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 21.5.2004 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Patna In Civil Revision No. 945 of 2002.

          S.B. Sanyal, Ranjan Mukherjee for the Appellants.
c       Respondent-In-Person, P.S. Mishra, Pramod Swarup,
    Sakha Ram Singh, Pareena Swarup, Tathagat H. Vardhan,
    Mayur Chaturvedi, Rituraj Choudhary, Akeshey Verma, Praveen
    Swarup, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Atishi Dipankar for the
    Respondents.
D
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. This appeal has been filed
    against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.5.2004
E   passed by learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Civil
    revision No. 945 of 2002.

        2. The facts have been stated in the impugned judgment
    and we are not repeating the same except where necessary.

F        3. It appears that a Title Suit No. 186 of 1984 by one
  Nrisingha Prasad Biswas and his four sons (who are the
  appellants herein) was filed against the respondents herein
  befon:'! the Subordinate Judge-V, Bhagalpur for partition of
  certain properties. While the aforesaid partition suit was
G pending, the defendants Smt. Pushpa Biswas and Apurva
  Kumar Biswas executed a General Power of Attorney on
  3:1. 7.1992 in favour of Umesh Chandra and Dr. Sanjeev Kumar
  Mishra and the same was registered. The terms and conditions
  giving the powers to the attorneys were specifically set out in
H
  DEB RATAN BISWAS AND ORS. v. MOST. ANAND                     307
   MOYI DEVI AND ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
the Power of Attorney itself.                                         A
     4. On 30. 7 .1996; the parties to the suit including Push pa
Biswas and Apurva Kumar Biswas filed a compromise petition
which was forwarded to the Sheristedar for scrutiny and report.
On 31. 7 .1996, on receiving the report of the Sheristedar dated
                                                                      8
30.7.1996, the Subordinate Judge-V, Bhagalpur approved the
terms of the compromise and directed that a decree be passed
in terms of the compromise.

      5. Subsequently, on 29.8.1996, a petition purporting to be
on behalf of Pushpa Biswas and Apurva Kumar Biswas was                C
filed through the attorney Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra under
Section 151 CPC being Miscellaneous Case No. 13/16 of
1996 praying for recalling the order dated 31. 7 .1996 passed
in terms of the compromise on the allegation that the signatures
on the compromise were forged.                                        D

     6. On 7.6.2002, the learned Subordinate Judge-V,
Bhagalpur held that Miscellaneous Petition filed at the instance
of only one of the attorneys was not maintainable, as aceording
to the terms of the power of attorney both the constituted
attorneys were entrusted to act jointly. Hence, he dismissed the      E i
Miscellaneous Case filed by Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra.

     7. Against that order dated 7.6.2002, the respondents
herein filed a Civil Revision being Civil Revision No. 945 of
2002 which was allowed by the impugned judgment, and hence            F
this appeal.
                                               •
      8. In the order dated 7.6.2002 in Misc. Case No. 13/96,
the learned Subordinate Judge-V, Bhagalpur considered the
prayer of the applicant in that Miscellaneous Case that the the       G
compromise petition had not been signed by the petitioners
and their signatures were forged. The finding of fact recorded
by the learned Subordinate Judge-V, Bhagalpur after detailed
discussion of the evidence was that there was no forgery. This
finding is based on material on record and it is a finding of fact.
                                                                      H
    308      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 7 S.C.R.


A Hence it could not have been validly interfered with in Civil
  Revision by the High Court.

       9. In his order dated 7.6.2002, the learned Subordinate
  Judge-V Bhaga!pur has held that Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra
  was only an attorney and he cannot claim any independent
8
  capacity in the proceedings. We agree with this view. The
  principal Pushpa Biswas and Apurva Kumar Biswas have
  signed the compromise for partition of the property, which in
  our opinion in law amounts to implied revocation of power of
  attorney in favour of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra vide Illustration
C to Section 207 of the Indian Contract Act. Pushpa Biswas and
  Apurva Kumar Biswas cannot be allowed to say that their own
  act of signing the compromise petition was collusive and
  fraudulent.

D       10. The learned Subordinate Judge-V, Bhagalpur has
   gone into.the evidence in great detail and recorded findings of
   fact which could not have been interfered with by the High Court
   in civil revision. It is well settled that in civil revision the
, jurisdiction of the High Court is limited, and it can only go into
E ·the questions of jurisdiction, but there is no error of jurisdiction
   in the present case.

       11. We have carefully perused the impugne9 judgment of
  the High Court. The High Court has observed that defendants
  Nos. 2 and 2a viz., Pushpa Biswas and Apurva Kumar Biswas
F should have col')sulted the power of attorney Dr. Sanjeev Kumar
  Mishra before signing the compromise petition. This is a
  strange kind of reasoning. The principal is not bound to consult
  his attorney before signing a compromise petition.

G         12. The High Court has also _held that if Dr. Sanjeev Kumar
    Mishra was not willing to sign the compromise petition his
    unwillingness should have been mentioned in the compromise
    petition. This also is a strange reasoning. It is well-settled that
    even after execution of a power of attorney the principal can
H
 DEB RATAN BISWAS AND ORS. v. MOST. ANAND                     309
  MOYI DEVI AND ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]
act independently and does not have to take the consent of the        A
attorney. The attorney is after all only an agent of the principal.
Even after executing a power of attorney the principal can act
on his own.

     13. For the reasons given above this appeal is allowed.          B
The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set
aside and the order dated 7.6.2002 of the learned Subordinate
Judge-V, Bhagalpur is restored. There shall be no order as to
costs.

B.B.B .                                         Appeal allowed.       c