JUDGMNET G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. 1. The Appeal Suit is filed by the plaintiffs, who lost their suit filed for partition and declaration. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their status and ranking in the plaint. 3. The case of the plaintiffs: - Palani Gounder and his wife Pachiammal, had seven children. During his lifetime, Palani Gounder purchased the suit properties morefully described under Schedule 1 (two items) and Schedule 2 (one item). Palani Gounder died intestate on 24.05.1999. The suit properties are enjoyed by the plaintiffs 1 to 6 along with first defendant and the mother jointly. Due to continuous monsoon failure for years together, the properties remained without proper care and income. Therefore, the first defendant suggested to sell the property jointly. Accepting his suggestion to sell part of the agricultural lands in the Schedule 1 and 2, a registered General Power of Attorney to the second defendant was given on 22/06/2006 to fetch buyers and sell the property. Promising to adjust with the future sale consideration, a small amount was given to the plaintiffs by the first defendant, after obtaining their signatures. However, the Power Agent/T.Raj Kumar (2nd defendant) did not take any effort to sell the property and render accounts. Meanwhile, Pachiammal died on 16/12/2007, thereby the General Power of Attorney given in favour of the 2nd defendant became invalid. Subsequently, the first defendant demanded the loan given to the plaintiffs, hence the said loan was discharged. Trusting their brother (first defendant), the plaintiffs did not ask back the signed papers at the time of discharging the loan. Thereafter, misunderstanding erupted between the plaintiffs and the first defendant regarding dividing the properties. In the Panchayat, the plaintiffs proposed for division of the property equally and each of them to deal independently the portion allotted to them. The first defendant, however, refused to accept the proposal and delayed the division. Later, the plaintiffs came to know from third parties that at the instigation of the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant was trying to misuse the Power of Attorney given to him even after the demise of one of the principal Pachiammal. The first defendant, however, refused to accept the proposal and delayed the division. Later, the plaintiffs came to know from third parties that at the instigation of the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant was trying to misuse the Power of Attorney given to him even after the demise of one of the principal Pachiammal. Then, the plaintiffs went to the house of the first defendant and requested him to stop from attempting to alienate the properties based on the power of attorney deed, which had become invalid, after the demise of Pachiammal and to co - operate for the partition. Since, the first defendant, in connivance with second defendant, involved in activities detrimental to the other shares, the plaintiffs filed the suit to declare the suit schedule properties as joint family property enjoyed jointly by the plaintiffs 1 to 6 and 1st defendant. Consequently, they seek to divide the suit properties into seven equal parts and allot one share each to the plaintiffs 1 to 6 and one share to the first defendant, who is the son of Palani Gounder. 4. Pending suit, the first plaintiff and fifth plaintiff died. Their legal heirs were impleaded as plaintiffs 7 and 8, and defendants 9 and 10, respectively. 5. Case of the first defendant: - The relationship between the plaintiffs and the first defendant is admitted. It is also admitted that the suit properties were purchased by Palani Gounder, who died intestate. The first defendant admits that in the 2nd item of the first schedule, there was a house in a portion which was not maintained properly. However, the properties are not in joint possession or enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the first defendant after 22.06.2006. 6. In the plaint averment that the plaintiffs and first defendant, along with their mother Pachiammal, decided to sell the property and executed a Power of Attorney to the 2nd defendant on 22/06/2006 is admitted. However, it is not correct that the power agent failed to discharge his power or that possession remained with the principal. In fact, the legal heirs of the Palani Gounder, after executing the General Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant, received the sale consideration and given the possession of the property to 2nd defendant with power to deal with the property, including sale of the property. In fact, the legal heirs of the Palani Gounder, after executing the General Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant, received the sale consideration and given the possession of the property to 2nd defendant with power to deal with the property, including sale of the property. The plaintiffs 2 to 6, first defendant, along with their mother Pachiammal sold away the property for Rs.81,43,000/- and received their respective shares through cheque and cash. A receipt dated 15.12.2006 given to the 2nd defendant jointly for the receipt of the sale consideration and acknowledging the handing over of the possession. Thereafter, the 2nd defendant had sold the property to the defendants 3 to 5. This subsequent transfer of property was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and was also reiterated through the reply notice dated 23.10.2013. 7. Having received the sale consideration from the power agent (2nd defendant) and handed over possession of the property to him, the subsequent death of Pachiammal does not matter in anyway, since the power of attorney is coupled with interest. Further, the suit is also liable to be dismissed for not valuing it under appropriated Section and paying the ad valorem Court fees. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. Therefore, payment of fixed court fees for the reliefs of partition, declaration and permanent injunction under S.37, S.25(d) and S.27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 is not maintainable. 8. Case of the second defendant: - The plaintiffs, first defendant and their mother Pachiammal gave a Power of Attorney on 22/06/2006, in favour of the second defendant, authorising him to sell Item No.1 of the first schedule property and the second schedule property. The averments that the second defendant did not take any steps to act as an agent and he obtained signatures in papers under the guise of giving loan are all denied as false. The claim of the plaintiffs that they are entitled for 1/7th share in the property is denied. The averments that the second defendant did not take any steps to act as an agent and he obtained signatures in papers under the guise of giving loan are all denied as false. The claim of the plaintiffs that they are entitled for 1/7th share in the property is denied. In fact, the legal heirs of Palani Gounder i.e., the plaintiffs, first defendant and their mother Pachiammal, jointly executed the power of attorney to the second defendant on 22/06/2006 in respect of Item No.1 of the first schedule and the second schedule properties, totally measuring 4.79 acres, agreed to receive Rs.81,43,000/- as total consideration for the property and received the money on the same day of executing the power of attorney. A sum of Rs.70,000/- was paid through demand draft of Rs.10,000/- each to each of the sharers and remaining by cash. On receiving the amount a receipt - cum - acknowledgement in favour of the second defendant was given and same was witnessed by two sons of the first plaintiff, son of the first defendant, son of the second plaintiff and two daughters of the third plaintiff. From that day onward, the legal heirs of Palani Gounder, including his wife Pachiammal have no surviving right in the properties mentioned as item No.1 in the first schedule and the second schedule. Since the 2nd defendant had already paid the sale consideration to Pachiammal which was duly acknowledged by Pachiammal, her subsequent death will not render the power of attorney invalid. 9. The 2nd defendant had already sold the properties covered under the power of attorney under three registered sale deeds: (1) Document No:6293/2008 - an extent of 1.60 acres to Palanisamy; (2) Document No:6294/2008 - an extent of 1.64 acres to Ganesh and (3) Document No:6295/2008 - an extent of 1.55 acres to Arunagiri all dated 06/11/2008. From that date of their respective purchasers, the said purchasers are in possession and enjoyment of the properties. The plaintiffs are fully aware of these transactions but pretending as if, they are oblivious of these fact, the present suit is filed after five years. The subsequent purchasers are not made party to the suit, hence the suit is also bad for non - joinder of necessary parties. 10. Initially, the suit was filed only against two defendants i.e., Chinnu S/o. Palani Gounder and the power agent T.Raj kumar. The subsequent purchasers are not made party to the suit, hence the suit is also bad for non - joinder of necessary parties. 10. Initially, the suit was filed only against two defendants i.e., Chinnu S/o. Palani Gounder and the power agent T.Raj kumar. After the filing of written statements by them, defendants 3 to 6 were impleaded. While the defendants 3 to 5 remained exparte, the 6th defendant, who is the purchaser from the defendants 3 to 5, entered appearance and filed a written statement with the following averments: - 11. The property originally belongs to Palani Gounder. After his demise, his wife and seven children inherited the property by intestate succession. They all jointly executed power of attorney to the second defendant on 22/12/2006. They all separately received the consideration for the property and acknowledged the same vide receipt dated 22/12/2006. Based on the power of attorney, which was coupled with interest, the 2nd defendant sold 4.79 acres of land to defendants 3 to 5 under three sale deeds. From the defendants 3 to 5, this defendant purchased 3.15 acres from 3rd and 4th defendants under a sale deed dated 25/03/2010 under document No:1656/2010 and 1.64 acres from the 5th defendant under document No:1654/2010 dated 25/03/2010. The suit, in so far as it relates to this defendant, has been filed eight years after the alienation through the Power of Attorney and is therefore barred by limitation. 12. The trial Court based on the above pleadings, framed the following issues: - 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that the power of attorney deed executed in favour of 2nd defendant is not binding the plaintiff? 2. Whether the suit properties are available for partition and if so what is the share of the plaintiff? 3. What other relief? Additional issues: - 1. Whether the sale deed executed by the defendants 3 to 5 with respect to suit property in favour of 2nd defendant would not bind the plaintiff is correct? 2. Whether the sale deed executed by the defendants 3 to 5 with respect to suit property in favour of 6th defendant would not bind the plaintiff is correct? 3. Whether the Court fees paid is correct? 13. On behalf of the plaintiffs, one witness (P.W.1) was examined and 15 documents (Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.15) were marked. 2. Whether the sale deed executed by the defendants 3 to 5 with respect to suit property in favour of 6th defendant would not bind the plaintiff is correct? 3. Whether the Court fees paid is correct? 13. On behalf of the plaintiffs, one witness (P.W.1) was examined and 15 documents (Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.15) were marked. On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses (D.W.1 and D.W.2) were examined and 16 documents (Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.16) were marked. 14. The trial Court, on considering the evidence, dismissed the suit by holding that the power of attorney jointly executed by the owners of the property does not get terminated on the demise of Pachiammal. The sale deed executed by the power agent (2nd Defendant) in favour of the defendants 3 to 5 binds on the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree of partition or declaration. 15. The appeal is directed against the above finding. Point for determination: Whether the power of attorney deed dated Ex.B.11 dated 22/12/2006 is coupled with interest and valid even after the demise of Pachiammal, in view of S.202 of the Indian Contracts Act and Ex.B - 12 receipt. ? 16. Ex.A - 1 is the sale deed in the name of Palani Gounder for the property shown in the Schedule 2. Ex.A - 2 is the sale deed in the name of Palani Gounder for the properties shown as item Nos.1 and 2 in the Schedule 1. Palani Gounder is the father of the first defendant and plaintiffs 1 to 6. Palani Gounder died intestate on 24/05/1999 leaving behind his widow Pachiammal and 7 children, who are the plaintiffs 1 to 6 and the first defendant. The legal heir certificate of Palani Gounder is marked as Ex.B.2. Pending suit, 1st and 5th plaintiffs died. Their legal heirs were impleaded as plaintiffs 7 to 10. The title over the property and the relationship among the parties are not disputed. Likewise, it is admitted by all the parties concern that, Ex.A.3 dated 22/12/2006, a power of attorney deed was executed by all the legal heirs of Palani Gounder and in favour of 2nd defendant to deal with the suit properties. After execution of the power of attorney deed, one of the party Pachiammal died on 16/12/2007. This fact is also not disputed. 17. After execution of the power of attorney deed, one of the party Pachiammal died on 16/12/2007. This fact is also not disputed. 17. The point in dispute is the sale of the suit properties by the 2nd defendant on the strength of the power of attorney deed, dated 22/12/2006, after the demise of Pachiammal on 16/12/2007. The disputed sale deeds are Ex.A.7 to Ex.A.11 which are between 06/11/2008 and 25/03/2010. 18. According to the 1st and 2nd defendants, pursuant to the power of attorney, the plaintiffs 1 to 6, first defendant and their mother Pachiammal (all the legal heirs of Palani Gounder) received Rs.81,43,000/- and handed over the possession of the property on 22/12/2006. The receipt acknowledging the transfer of possession and passing of entire sale consideration is Ex.B.4=Ex.B.12. The respective shares were paid individually through demand drafts and cash. 19. The case of the plaintiffs is that, they received money only from the first defendant and it was not towards sale consideration. The first defendant made false promise and obtained their signatures in blank papers. It was only in the year 2013, when they applied for Encumbrance Certificate, they came to know about the sale of the property, misusing the power of attorney deed, which has become stale and got terminated, after the demise of Pachiammal. 20. The contention of the plaintiffs is based on the general rule stated in S.201 of the Indian Contracts Act. However, there is an exception to the general rule which we get in S.202 of the Indian Contracts Act. The defendants rely on the exception by contending that the irrevocable power of attorney coupled with interest will not get terminated on the death of Pachiammal. The entire sale consideration had been received and possession given to the Power Agent as early as 22/12/2006, with a written receipt (Ex.B.4) acknowledging the passing of consideration. 21. S.201 and S.202 of the Indian Contracts Act deals about the 'Termination of Agency' and 'Termination of Agency, where agent has an interest in subject matter'. For easy reference, S.201 and S.202 of Indian Contracts Act, are extracted below: "201. Termination of agency. 21. S.201 and S.202 of the Indian Contracts Act deals about the 'Termination of Agency' and 'Termination of Agency, where agent has an interest in subject matter'. For easy reference, S.201 and S.202 of Indian Contracts Act, are extracted below: "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. 202. Termination of agency, where agent has an interest in subject - matter. - Where the agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject - matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest." 22. From the reading of the above Sections, it is clear that an agency is deemed to continue in the absence of anything that would prove termination of the agency on one or the other grounds mentioned in S.201 of Indian Contracts Act. They are also other mode of termination of Agency: - (i) By mutual agreement. (ii) Completion of the term of agency by expiry of time agreed upon. (iii). Destruction of the subject - matter of the agency. (iv) The agency becoming subsequently unlawful. (v) Dissolution of the principal firm. 23. The death of either the Principal or the Agent is one of the ground for Termination of Agency as per S.201 of Indian Contract Act. Whereas, S.202 of Indian Contract Act, deals cases of except to the general rule. 24. In this case, admittedly, Pachiammal who is one of the principals' mentioned in the Power of Attorney (Ex.A.3), died on 16.12.2007. It is also borne by record that subsequent to her death, the 2nd defendant has alienated the property to third parties. 25. Courts have held that the termination of an agency determines the authority of the Agent and the relationship between the Principal and Agent. However, the Agent would still be entitled to indemnity for the acts done and to receive remuneration earned for the period before the termination and may also claim account from the principal. 26. 25. Courts have held that the termination of an agency determines the authority of the Agent and the relationship between the Principal and Agent. However, the Agent would still be entitled to indemnity for the acts done and to receive remuneration earned for the period before the termination and may also claim account from the principal. 26. In this case, the receipt and acknowledgement marked as Ex.B.4 clearly establish without doubt that the Power of Attorney (Ex.A.3) is coupled with interest. 27. The following covenants contained in Ex.B.4 speaks volumes about the intention of the parties to the document, namely, the plaintiff's, their mother Pachiammal, the 1st defendant as one party and the 2nd defendant as the other party. * This document dated 22.12.2006 is captioned as 'Sale Consideration Receipt'. * The schedule property valued at Rs.81,43,000/- and the parties have acknowledged the receipt of the entire consideration and handing over the possession to the 2nd defendant. * They have reiterated authorisation given to the 2nd respondent under the registered Power of Attorney, dated 22.12.2006, also consented for the 2nd respondent to sale the property and enjoy the profit and loss. * They have further reiterated that they will not revoke the Power of Attorney at any point of time. It is also made clear that though under the Power of Attorney, the Agent is obliged to render accounts, in view of receiving the entire sale consideration, the 2nd respondent is relieved from the responsibility of rendering accounts. 28. Under the Power of Attorney marked as Ex.B.11=Ex.A.3, the original title deed had already been handed over to the 2nd respondent. These facts would clearly prove that the Power of Attorney is coupled with interest. Therefore, the death of one of the principals will not alter the right of 2nd respondent. 29. In fine, the Appeal Suit stands dismissed. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.360 of 2013 on the file of the Learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.