Oral revocation of a Power of Attorney is legally ineffective against a subsequently registered sale deed.

The plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) filed a suit for cancellation of a sale deed and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land. He alleged that in 2012, he executed an agreement and Power of Attorney (P/A) in favor of the petitioner (Defendant No. 2) for land conversion purposes

The plaintiff claimed he orally revoked the P/A in January 2022 and later sent a formal registered notice of revocation on 02.11.2023

The petitioner had already executed a sale deed in favor of Respondent No. 2 on 31.10.2023, which was registered on 03.11.2023

The petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, arguing it disclosed no cause of action. The Trial Court rejected the application on 29.09.2025, leading to this revision petition

1. Whether an oral revocation of a written Power of Attorney is legally valid and constitutes a cause of action for challenging a subsequent sale deed

2. Whether a suit for cancellation of a sale deed is maintainable solely on the ground of non-payment of sale consideration

3. Whether the Trial Court erred in refusing to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the grounds of "clever drafting" and lack of a bona fide cause of action

The Court applied Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC regarding the rejection of a plaint that fails to disclose a cause of action

It relied on Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, holding that the court must ignore clever drafting to see if a suit is manifestly vexatious

Regarding revocation, the court applied Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the principle from S. Saktivel v. M. Venugopal Pillai, which mandates that a document required by law to be in writing can only be modified or rescinded by another written instrument, not by parol (oral) evidence

It further cited Amar Nath v. Gian Chand to establish that revocation of a P/A must be communicated to the agent to be effective

The High Court found that the plaintiff admitted the execution of the P/A dated 05.12.2012. Applying Section 92 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that the alleged oral revocation in January 2022 was legally non-existent and incapable of extinguishing the agent's authority

The written revocation occurred on 02.11.2023, whereas the sale deed had already been executed on 31.10.2023. The Trial Court’s finding that the sale was executed on 03.11.2023 was factually incorrect, as that was merely the date of registration

following the Dahiben precedent, the Court reasoned that the allegation of non-payment of consideration might support a suit for recovery of money but does not provide a legal basis for the cancellation of a registered sale deed. Consequently, the Court determined the plaint was a result of "clever drafting" to create an illusory cause of action

The Court ordered the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and directed that the plaintiff be permitted to apply for a refund of the court fees