Allowed¶39

S.Mohammed Abdul Khader v. The District Registrar

Madras HC27 Mar 2025WP(MD)/8522/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(MD)No.8522 of 2025, Madras High Court Madurai Bench, 27.03.2025, V. Lakshminarayanan J. Keywords: cancellation of power of attorney by agent; unilateral termination of agency; Section 201 Indian Contract Act 1872; Sub Registrar refusal to register cancellation; GPA Doc.No.332/2022 Tenkasi; power agent relinquishment after police complaint (Central Crime Branch, Tambaram); mandamus; registration without principals' appearance; T.Chithra; V.Latha.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 and 2 to register the cancellation of the power of attorney deed in Doc.No.332 of 2022 within two weeks from the date of presentation, without insisting on the appearance of respondents 3 and 4; no costs awarded. ¶39

S.Mohammed Abdul Khader Vs The District Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether a power agent can unilaterally terminate the agency and obtain registration of the cancellation of the power of attorney from the Sub Registrar without the appearance or consent of the principals (respondents 3 and 4), in circumstances where the agent faces a police complaint and his notices to the principals were returned undelivered.

¶29

Court's answer

Under Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agency can be terminated either by the principal or by the agent, and all that is required is that the terminating party informs the other of the intention to cancel the power of attorney; the petitioner's lawyer's notice, though returned as 'no such person', showed he took all efforts possible to inform respondents 3 and 4.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Since the substantive law permits a person to unilaterally relinquish the role of agent, respondents 1 and 2 were directed to register the cancellation of the power of attorney deed in Doc.No.332 of 2022 within two weeks from the date of presentation, without insisting on the appearance of respondents 3 and 4.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (V. Lakshminarayanan, J.) allowed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus against the District Registrar and Sub Registrar, Tenkasi. Holding that under Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 an agency may be terminated by the agent as well as the principal upon notice, the Court directed registration of the cancellation of General Power of Attorney Document No.332/2022 (executed by respondents 3 and 4) within two weeks of presentation, ruling that the Sub Registrar cannot refuse registration nor insist on the appearance of the principals, particularly where the agent faced a police complaint of impersonation by his principals and his notices to them were returned undelivered.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.8522 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.8522 of 2025

¶7

S.Mohammed Abdul Khader ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Tenkasi.

¶10

2.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Tenkasi.

¶11

3.T.Chithra

¶12

4.V.Latha ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 08.03.2025 and consequently directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to cancel the General Power of Attorney document No.332/2022 on in Sub-Registrar office Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr.C.Nishanth Periyaarasu

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.8522 of 2025

¶18

For R1 & R2 :Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus, directing the respondents 1

¶21

and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.03.2025 and to direct them to cancel the general power of attorney Doc.No. 332/2022 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Tenkasi.

¶22

2.The petitioner states that the respondents 3 and 4 executed a deed of power of attorney appointing the petitioner as their power agent. The power empowered the petitioner to deal with the property situated in S.Nos.111/2E, 2/421 and 3/485 and 111/2E, 2/421 and 3/485 in Flat Nos.

¶23

21 and 20 respectively of Uthandi Village, East Costal Road, Neelankarai. The petitioner was given to understand that the respondents 3 and 4 are the owners of the property.

¶24

3.While the petitioner was attempting to deal with the property as an agent, he was summoned by the Inspector of Police, Team-IV, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram City Police, Sollinganallur, Chennai. The 2/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.8522 of 2025

¶27

summon related to a complaint said to have been lodged by one Chitra, alleging that the principal of the writ petitioner, Chitra, had misrepresented and impersonated herself as the owner of the property, when the complainant was the actual owner. The petitioner informed the Police Authorities that he is only a power agent. The police instructed him to cancel the power of attorney. The petitioner sent notices to the respondents 3 and 4, however all the notices were returned as 'addressee not found'. Being left with no other alternative, the petitioner approached the second respondent for registration of the cancellation of the power of attorney. The second respondent has refused to register the cancellation document. Hence, this writ petition.

¶28

4.I heard Mr.C.Nishanth Periyaarasu learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶29

5.The narration of the facts shows that the petitioner was a power agent and now, on account of the police complaint lodged against him, wants to relinquish that role. The second respondent/Sub Registrar

¶30

3/6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.8522 of 2025

¶33

appears to be under the impression that a power agent cannot unilaterally terminate the agency.

¶34

6.In terms of Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agency can be terminated either by the principal or by the agent. All that is required is that either the principal or the agent must inform the other of the intention to cancel the power of attorney. In the present case, a lawyer's notice was also issued by the petitioner to the respondents 3 and 4. The lawyer's notice was returned as 'no such person'. It shows that the petitioner has taken all the efforts possible to inform the respondents 3 and 4 that he is not inclined to act as their agent any more.

¶35

7.In the light of the above discussion, since the substantive law, namely the Indian Contract Act, 1872, permits a person to unilaterally relinquish the role as an agent, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to register the cancellation of power of attorney deed in Doc.No.332 of 2022 on the file of the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of the same, without insisting the appearance of the respondents 3 and 4 herein.

¶36

4/6

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.8522 of 2025

¶39

8.With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands ordered.

¶40

No costs.

¶41

Index :Yes / No 27.03.2025 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No