JUDGMENT 1. The order and decree, dtd. 23/11/2021 in O.S.No.804 of 2015, on the file of XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is under challenge in the present appeal. 2. The appellants are the plaintiffs before the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. They filed a suit with a prayer to grant declaration that four General Power of Attorneys bearing Document Nos.643/2015, 644/2015, 645/2015 and 646/2015 are vitiated by fraud, invalid/nonest and not binding on the plaintiffs and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 8 and also the District Registrar and Sub-Registrar i.e., defendant Nos.9 and 10 from registering any documents with the aid of the said four false General Power of Attorneys and further for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 8 from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. 3. For the sake of decision in this appeal, it is pertinent to extract here the substance of the case of the plaintiffs, according to the plaint averments. 4. The first plaintiff M/s.ECE Industries Limited, represented by its Authorized Signatory, Sri Deepak Kumar Tiwary. The second plaintiff namely Bhukhand Developers, LLP, represented by its Authorized Signatory, Sri R. Mohan Reddy, is added as per the order in I.A.No.371 of 2020, dtd. 28/1/2021 before the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Hence, the case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the first plaintiff was the absolute owner of Ac.21-272/3 cents of land situated in villages of Marripalem and Kapparada, Visakhapatnam District. It was purchased by the first plaintiff Company from the original land owners more than five decades ago in 1962, 1963, 1965, 2009 and 2011 through various registered sale deeds in different survey numbers. Out of the same, an extent of Ac.2-30 cents was initially on a long lease since 1960's with the first plaintiff and it was purchased by the first plaintiff through four sale deeds in the year 2009 (Ac.0-15 cents in Survey No.59/3P) and in 2011 (Ac.0-15 cents in Survey No.59/3P, Ac.1-00 cents in Survey No.59/3P and Ac.1-00 cents in Survey No.66/1). Since then, the first plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. It established an industry in the said site by constructing factory sheds for manufacture of electric transformer, etc., in the name and style of "E.C.E. Industries Limited". Since then, the first plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. It established an industry in the said site by constructing factory sheds for manufacture of electric transformer, etc., in the name and style of "E.C.E. Industries Limited". Originally, the Andhra Pradesh Electrical and Equipment Company Limited was the name of the unit and the proprietor of the same was Electric Construction and Equipment Company Limited. Later, the name was changed into M/s.ECE Industries Limited on 5/6/1987. The entire site of the first plaintiff is bounded by a big wall. The first plaintiff filed necessary documents to show his possession. In the year, 2004 and 2006, the first plaintiff decided to alienate Ac.11-45 cents out of various extent of land owned by them, to a company called M/s. Lakshmi Techno Solutions (P) Limited under an agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A. and ultimately in the year 2013 and 2014, the first plaintiff executed sale deeds in favour of the second plaintiff conveying an extent of Ac.10-97 cents. After sale of the land by the first plaintiff to the said company, the second plaintiff applied to the Government authorities for conversation of the land from industrial to partly residential and partly commercial use. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.249, dtd. 11/12/2014. As on the date, the first plaintiff is an absolute possession and enjoyment of Ac.10-30 2/3 cents after the sale of land as mentioned above to the second plaintiff. 5. The defendant Nos.1 to 8 launched a diabolical plan to grab the property belonged to plaintiffs taking advantage of the amendment to the Stamp Act in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The defendants falsely and fraudulently created and got registered four registered General Power of Attorneys bearing document Nos.643/2015, 644/2015, 645/2015 and 646/2015, dtd. 23/2/2015. They are all shame and fake documents. The extents mentioned in the G.P.As., did not exist on the ground more so in the survey numbers mentioned. The so-called link documents mentioned in the G.P.As., dealt with Ac.2-70 cents whereas more than about 9 times, the said land is mentioned in the G.P.As. for about Ac.22-22 cents. They does not relates to any land that exists. The parties who are mentioned as the executants are not the actual executants. The dates of two link documents i.e., 2639/1963 and 2640/1963 are all false. All the four G.P.As. for about Ac.22-22 cents. They does not relates to any land that exists. The parties who are mentioned as the executants are not the actual executants. The dates of two link documents i.e., 2639/1963 and 2640/1963 are all false. All the four G.P.As. are deliberately fabricated and forged for making unlawful gain for Defendant Nos.1 to 8. They are not binding on the plaintiffs but they have a potential to cause loss to the plaintiffs as they are being acted upon by the defendants. The plaintiffs gave complaints to the higher authorities in the Registration Department and also to the police. The District Registrar initiated enquiry and taken action also. So, there is an impending threat to the title and possession of the plaintiffs from Defendant Nos.1 to 8. Under the guise of fabricated General Power of Attorneys, they are attempting to enter into the property. Hence, the suit for declaration and consequential permanent injunction and further for permanent injunction to protect the possession. 6. The material available on record shows that when the matter was coming for evidence, during the course of trial, a memo was filed on behalf of the defendants stating that the defendant Nos.4, 5 and 7 died. In the said memo, there was a prayer that the suit becomes infructuous and not entertainable and maintainable on account of the death of principal and some Agents. The plaintiffs before the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, filed objections opposing the prayer. It appears that the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam proceeded to adjudicate the memo, basing on the contents of the memo and objections filed. Both sides canvassed arguments and ultimately the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, dismissed the suit as become infructuous on account of the death of defendant Nos.4, 5 and 7. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs filed the present appeal. 7. Now, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the impugned order-cum-decree, dtd. 23/11/2021 holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs becomes infructuous due to death of the Defendant Nos.4, 5 and 7, as such, dismissing the suit is tenable under law and facts? (2) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the impugned order? Point Nos.1 and 2: 8. 23/11/2021 holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs becomes infructuous due to death of the Defendant Nos.4, 5 and 7, as such, dismissing the suit is tenable under law and facts? (2) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the impugned order? Point Nos.1 and 2: 8. Sri V. Ramesh, learned counsel, representing the learned counsel for the appellants Sri A. Chandra Sekhar, would contend that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is a comprehensive one. When they have sought for declaration that the impugned G.P.As. are nonest under law, vitiated by fraud and invalid documents and consequential permanent injunction to restrain the defendant Nos.1 to 8 to execute any documents on the strength of the G.P.As., and further permanent injunction as against Defendant Nos.1 to 8 to protect their possession, the suit will not become infructuous merely on account of the death of defendant Nos.4, 5 and 7. He would submit that there are three prayers in the plaint. The reliefs (a) and (b) in the prayer are declaration and consequential injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 8 and also defendant Nos.9 and 10 from registering any documents. The relief (c) in the prayer is to decree the suit for permanent injunction to protect the possession. The relief (c) has nothing to do with the prayers (a) and (b). It has nothing to do with the relief of declaration. Relief (b) is only a consequential relief to (a). The learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam delivered a perverse order by misinterpreting as if 4th defendant is one of the executants and that Defendant No.5 and 7 are the G.P.A. holders. These findings are contrary to the contents of the G.P.As. According to the impugned documents whose validity was questioned by the plaintiffs before the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, the G.P.As., were executed in the name of defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4. Executants were defendant Nos.5 to 8. Therefore, the findings of the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, are not at all tenable. Even otherwise, the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam did not look into the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure. When some of the plaintiffs or some of the defendants died during the pendency of the suit, the cause of action would continue, if there are surviving plaintiffs or defendants. Even otherwise, the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam did not look into the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure. When some of the plaintiffs or some of the defendants died during the pendency of the suit, the cause of action would continue, if there are surviving plaintiffs or defendants. The learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, misinterpreted the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Insofar as relief of declaration and consequential permanent injunction, the right to sue continue and the relief of permanent injunction to protect possession is an independent relief which is not consequential to relief (a) and (b). At any rate, the order delivered by the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, dismissing the suit as infructuous is not at all sustainable under law and facts, as such, it is liable to be set aside. 9. Smt. S.V. Indira, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, would contend that the moment that one of the parties to the G.P.As. were expired, automatically G.P.As. shall stands cancelled. The plaintiffs wanted to continue in the infructuous suit before the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. For the acts done by the G.P.As., their legal heirs were not liable, as such, there is no need or necessity to bring the legal representatives on record. The learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam with proper valid reasons held that the suit becomes infructuous, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Firstly, it is pertinent to look into the contents of the impugned G.P.As., which were sought to be declared as vitiated by fraud, nonest and invalid under law. As seen from the copies of G.P.As., the General Power of Attorney bearing Nos.643/2015 it was said to be executed in the name of Nethinti Appanna, Aarangi Chakravarthi, Bagadi Venkata Ramana Murthy and Gandi Radha Krishna. It was said to be executed by Nethinti Chenchu Naidu, Aarangi Hemalatha, Bagadi Lakshmi Narayana and Gandi Demudu. Same is the situation in respect of the other G.P.As., bearing Nos.644/2015, 645/2015 and 646/2015. Hence, they runs to the effect that G.P.A. Holders were Nethinti Appanna, Aarangi Chakravarthi, Bagadi Venkata Ramana Murthy and Gandi Radha Krishna, who are defendant Nos.1 to 4. They runs that executants are Nethinti Chenchu Naidu, Aarangi Hemalatha, Bagadi Lakshmi Narayana and Gandi Demudu, who are defendant Nos.5 to 8. 11. Hence, they runs to the effect that G.P.A. Holders were Nethinti Appanna, Aarangi Chakravarthi, Bagadi Venkata Ramana Murthy and Gandi Radha Krishna, who are defendant Nos.1 to 4. They runs that executants are Nethinti Chenchu Naidu, Aarangi Hemalatha, Bagadi Lakshmi Narayana and Gandi Demudu, who are defendant Nos.5 to 8. 11. The substance of the alleged authorization under the impugned G.P.As. is that the G.P.A. Holders are authorized to deal with the property mentioned in the G.P.As. including to sell away the property by executing agreement of sales, sale deeds and also to receive advances and to take necessary steps before the Registration Departments, etc. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant Nos.1 to 8 brought into existence these impugned documents though the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Admittedly, the relief (a) and (b) in the plaint prayer are interlinked with each other. They are relief of declaration and consequential permanent injunction. The relief (c) in the prayer of the plaint is to grant a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants restraining them from interfering with their possession. 12. The learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam at para No.5 of the impugned order made some findings as if out of four executants of the four registered G.P.As., dtd. 23/2/2015, one of the executants Gandhi Radha Krishna, S/o Appala Naidu, further the G.P.A. Holders 1 and 3 Nethinti Chenchu Naidu, S/o late Ramaiah and Bagadi Lakshmi Narayana, S/o late Neelaiah died on 16/5/2021, 25/12/2020 and 22/11/2016 respectively. As this Court already pointed out by looking into the contents of the impugned documents, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 were said to be the G.P.A. Holders and defendant Nos.5 to 8 were said to be the executants. So, the finding of fact recorded by the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam as if Gandi Radha Krishna was one of the executants of the documents and further Nethinti Chenchu Naidu and Bandi Lakshminarayana were the G.P.A. Holders is nothing but contrary to the contents of the impugned documents. It appears that the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam did not comprehend the contents of the impugned documents. It appears that the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam did not comprehend the contents of the impugned documents. But the fact remained is that Gandi Radha Krishna was said to be one of the G.P.A. Holders, but not the executant and further Nethinti Chenchu Naidu and Bandi Lakshminarayana were said to be the executants, but not G.P.A. Holders. The observations made by the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in this regard are not at all tenable. 13. Before the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs sought to rely upon the decision of Re Sital Prasad and others Insolvents, Badrinarain Agarwalla vs. Raja Brijnarain Roy and another, AIR 1917 Cal 436 relying upon Sec. 201 of the Contract Act and Monindra Lal Chatterjee vs. Hari Pada Ghose and others, AIR 1936 Cal 650 and canvassed a contention that when there were several executants of G.P.As. authorizing an Agent to took charge of some matters, the death of one of the principal, automatically does not terminate the authority of the Agent. On the other hand, the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam placed reliance on Southern Roadways Ltd., Madurai, represented by its Secretary vs. S.M. Krishnan, AIR 1990 SC 673 cited by the learned counsel for the defendants. 14. As seen from Sec. 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, it deals with termination of agency. It runs 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. 15. Here the fact remained is that the 4th defendant was alleged to be one of the G.P.A. Holders who died during the pendency of the suit. Defendant Nos.5 and 7 were alleged to be some of the executants of the G.P.As. jointly along with defendant Nos.6 and 8. As seen from the decision of Southern Roadways Limited case (3 supra), it was relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants before the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Defendant Nos.5 and 7 were alleged to be some of the executants of the G.P.As. jointly along with defendant Nos.6 and 8. As seen from the decision of Southern Roadways Limited case (3 supra), it was relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants before the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. It has nothing to do with the death of either the executants or the Agents. It deals with a situation that the revocation of agency by the principal immediately terminates the agent's actual authority to act for the principal unless the agent's author is coupled with an interest as envisaged under Sec. 202 of the Act. In my considered view, it has nothing to do with the facts and circumstances on hand. 16. Turning to the decision of Badrinarain Agarwalla's case (1 supra) cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs before the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, there were three principals and they executed joint power of attorney. The facts were that three brothers executed a joint power of attorney in favour of the agent i.e., fourth brother and authorized him to borrow the money on their behalf to mortgage their joint properties. Subsequently, one of the executants died without issue. After his death, a mortgage was executed by fourth brother and second brother on their own behalf and by the fourth brother as power of attorney holder of first brother. Later, a second mortgage was executed for the same properties by the fourth brother on his own behalf and as attorney for the second brother and the first brother. Later, a third mortgage of the same properties was executed by the fourth brother on his own behalf and as attorney for the first brother. The fourth brother further executed the same as guardian of the minor sons of the second brother who died after the execution of the second mortgage. Under those circumstances, the Calcutta High Court held that the intention of the parties was that the power of attorney should continue as long as the property remained undivided, and the deaths of one of the principals or agent did not revoke the power of attorney. 17. Under those circumstances, the Calcutta High Court held that the intention of the parties was that the power of attorney should continue as long as the property remained undivided, and the deaths of one of the principals or agent did not revoke the power of attorney. 17. Turning to the decision of Badrinarain Agarwalla's case (1 supra) wherein the High Court of Calcutta dealing with the power of the principal and agent and by looking into Sec. 201 of the Indian Contract Act extracted the observations of the Madras High Court in 35 MLJ 294 as follows: We cannot consequently hold as an inflexible rule of law that whenever two principals appoint an agent to take charge of some matter in which they are jointly interested, the death of one terminates the authority of the agent not merely as regards the deceased, but also as regards the remaining principal. We have in each case to determine the true intention of the parties to the contract, from the terms thereof and from the surrounding circumstances. 18. In my considered view, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs before the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam i.e., Badrinarain Agarwalla (1 supra) and Monindra Lal Chatterjee (2 supra) had some relation to deal with an aspect as to what is to be done when there were several executants of G.P.As., and an agent out of whom some of the executants died. In my considered view, the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, did not deal with the decisions cited by both sides properly. Southern Roadways Limited's case (3 supra) has nothing to deal with the situation canvassed before the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Apart from the above, even in the three decisions i.e., Badrinarain Agarwalla (1 supra), Monindra Lal Chatterjee (2 supra) and Southern Roadways Limited's case (3 supra), the validity, legality or otherwise of the General Power of Attorneys were not under challenge. 19. Now, the fact remained is that defendant Nos.5 to 8 allegedly executed G.P.As. in the capacity of principals in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4 showing them as agents to deal with the immovable property. Those documents were challenged by the plaintiffs as vitiated on account of the fraud and nonest in the eye of law. 19. Now, the fact remained is that defendant Nos.5 to 8 allegedly executed G.P.As. in the capacity of principals in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4 showing them as agents to deal with the immovable property. Those documents were challenged by the plaintiffs as vitiated on account of the fraud and nonest in the eye of law. It is to be noticed that the relief of declaration sought for by the plaintiffs is relating to a right and legal character. According to the provisions of Order XXII Rule 1 of C.P.C., if the right to sue continues, the death of one of the parties will not abate the suit. Further according to the Order XXII Rule 2 of C.P.C., where there are several plaintiffs and several defendants and one of them died and the right to sue survives to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, the suit shall be proceeded with at the instance of the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs or against the surviving defendant or defendants. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs before the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam agitated that the fraud played by them still survives. Admittedly, defendant Nos.4, 5 and 7 died during the pendency of the suit, but, here is a case that defendant Nos.1 to 3 were said to be the agents according to the impugned documents and Defendant Nos.5 and 6 were said to be the principals. Therefore, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 as alleged agents and defendant Nos.5 and 6 as alleged principals are still alive. The nature of relief sought for by the plaintiffs is to declare these impugned documents as vitiated by fraud. The findings of the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam is that on account of death of 4th defendant, one of the executants and defendant Nos.5 and 7 some of the G.P.A. Holders, the suit becomes infructuous. The finding that the defendant No.4 was one of the executants of four G.P.As and further finding that defendant No.5 and defendant No.7 were G.P.A. Holders is against the contents of the impugned documents. 20. It is to be noticed that the purported authorization under the impugned documents was also authorizing the agents to sell away the property. The finding that the defendant No.4 was one of the executants of four G.P.As and further finding that defendant No.5 and defendant No.7 were G.P.A. Holders is against the contents of the impugned documents. 20. It is to be noticed that the purported authorization under the impugned documents was also authorizing the agents to sell away the property. Hence, if such authorization was carried into fact, there would have been creation of third party interest and rights in favour of the third parties. Even if there was termination of authorization given to the defendant No.4 by Defendant Nos.5 and 7 on account of the death of defendant No.4 as well as defendant Nos.5 and 7 from the date of respective deaths, it will not make the suit infructuous. In other words, the termination of the agency on account of the death would come to effect only from the date of death and it will not go back to the date of disputed documents. The death of the parties as above would not perpetuate the transactions if any done by the agent as legal. The relief sought for by the plaintiffs is to brand the impugned documents as vitiated by fraud. If the analogy of the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, that the suit becomes infructuous is accepted, plaintiffs would be remediless. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the acts done by the agents if any pursuant to the authorization under the purported G.P.As., cannot be perpetuated and cannot be legalized forever by holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs becomes infructuous. In my considered view, the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, did not comprehend the facts in accordance with law. Apart from this, the relief sought for by the plaintiffs in the prayer relief (c) seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants to protect their possession is an independent one. The plaintiffs paid the Court Fee for the relief (a) and (b) together as it is a declaration and consequential permanent injunction. The plaintiffs valued the relief (c) independently and paid the Court Fee. Viewed from any angle, the findings made by the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam basing on a memo filed by the defendants dismissing the suit as becomes infructuous is not at all sustainable under law and facts, as such, the impugned order with decree is liable to be set aside. 21. Viewed from any angle, the findings made by the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam basing on a memo filed by the defendants dismissing the suit as becomes infructuous is not at all sustainable under law and facts, as such, the impugned order with decree is liable to be set aside. 21. As the suit is of the year, 2015 i.e., aged about 8 years which was dismissed as infructuous with erroneous reasons way back in the year 2021, it is just and necessary to direct the learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam to dispose the suit on merits. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs setting aside the impugned order and decree, dtd. 23/11/2021 in O.S.No.804 of 2015, on the file of XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, thereby restoring the said O.S.No.804 of 2015 to its file. The learned XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is directed to dispose O.S.No.804 of 2015, in accordance with law, by giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence on the issues framed, within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of this judgment. 23. Registry is directed to send copy of the judgment along with original record to the Court below on or before 11/8/2023. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.