Subba Rao, J.
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chitoor dismissing the suit filed by the appellants on the ground that the presentation of the plaint was not valid.
2. The suit was originally instituted in the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupathi. The plaint was signed by one G. Kanniah as the power of attorney agent of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and he also gave a vakalat in that capacity to an advocate practising in that Court. The District Munsif returned the plaint as he found that the subject-matter of the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. The plaint so returned was represented in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Chitoor. One Narayanaswami Naidu claiming to be the power of attorney agent of plaintiffs 1 and 2 gave a fresh vakalat to the advocate on 2-6-1945 and it was duly accepted by him. The defendants raised the contention that under the power of attorney given to Narayanaswami Naidu, no power was conferred on him to engage an advocate or conduct a suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the contention of the defendants and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.
3. The only question that arises in this appeal is whether, under the power of attorney given by plaintiffs 1 and 2 to Narayanaswami Naidu, he was authorised to conduct the suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Chittoor. The principle governing the construction of a power of attorney are succinctly stated in Bowstead on Agency (sixth edition). The learned author says as follows at page 73. 'Powers of attorney must be strictly pursued, and are construed as giving only such authority as they confer expressly or by necessary implication. The following are the most important rules of construction :
1. The operative part of the deed is controlled by the recitals.
2. Where authority is given to do particular acts, followed by general words, the general words are restricted to what is necessary for the proper performance of the particular acts.
3. General words do not confer general powers, but are limited to the purpose for which the authority is given, and are construed as enlarging the special powers when necessary and only when necessary for that purpose.
4. The deed must be construed so as to include all medium powers necessary for its effective execution.'
Bearing the aforesaid principles in mind, the power of attorney will have to be construed to ascertain whether under that document a particular power was given, expressly or by necessary implication. As the point argued turns upon the construction of the power of attorney filed in this case, it is as well the entire document is extracted: 'Special power of attorney executed and delivered on 23-11-1943 by the following two individuals, namely, Paliyagar Meghavarnam Nayanim Varu's sons (1) Desappa Nayanim Varu and (2) Ponnusami Nayanim Varu, Kshatriya Pliyagara, landlords residents of village of Nagarj attached to Puthur Sub-Registry, Chittoor. Cuddapah registration District, in favour of Kasala Narayanaswami Naidu, son of Abbayi Naidu alias Mutyalu Naidu, Balija, cultivator resident of Kothuru, hamlet of Mangadu village, attached to the aforesaid registration sub-district, is as follows :
We had filed a suit for possession of lands and for recovery of past profits in O. S. No. 314 of 1943 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupathi against one Ramabhaktula Mamayya and others. As it is not possible for us to conduct the same personally on account of certain inconveniences, we have appointed you as our agent to carry on the said suit. We have hereby authorised you to conduct on our behalf the entire proceedings which have to be taken in the said suit on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupathi, to sign, affix your signature on the vakalatnamahs, affidavits, petitions, compromise decrees and withdrawal memos, etc., and file the same into Court in the manner you please, to take out execution proceedings as soon as the decree is passed in the aforesaid suit and realize the amount, to file a petition into Court and draw the amount, etc., that may be realized on the aforesaid suit, to attend the Court, give evidence, etc., & file statements which may be found necessary. Without your knowledge or consent, we shall not make any other arrangements, in the above suit. In case we do so, they shall not be valid. As regards all the aforesaid matters that may be attended to by you on our behalf, we agree to the same as having been done by us personally. To this effect is the special power of attorney executed and delivered by us as consent.'
4. This power of attorney is a special power conferred on Narayanaswami Naidu for a particular purpose. It says that the plaintiffs filed O. S. No. 314 of 1943 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupathi & as it was not possible for them to conduct the same personally they appointed Narayanaswami Naidu as an agent to conduct the said suit. He is also authorised to conduct the entire proceedings which, have to be taken in the said suit. The document therefore confers an express power on Narayanaswami Naidu to conduct a particular suit pending in a particular Court. It does not expressly engage the attorney for the purpose of conducting the litigation generally in respect of the plaint schedule properties. But Mr. Ramaswami Ayyangar argued that such power must be inferred by necessary implication; as if the plaint is returned for want of jurisdiction or for any other similar reason, some such power is necessary to enable the power of attorney to re-present the plaint and conduct the suit in a proper forum. If that were the intention' of the parties they would have expressly conferred such power also. Further it cannot be assumed that the parties contemplated any such contingency as when the plaintiffs filed the suit they must have filed it only on the basis that that Court had jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suit. If the contention put forward on behalf of the appellants is accepted, the Court will be introducing new words in the power of attorney and also confer a new power on him. When the plaintiffs expressly authorised Narayanaswami Naidu to conduct a suit in a particular Court. I cannot hold that they intended to empower Narayanaswami Naidu to conduct that suit in any other Court. I am therefore constrained to hold, on a fair construction of the express words used in the power of attorney, that Narayanaswami Naidu has no power, under the power of attorney, to institute and conduct the suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Chittoor. In my view the conclusion arrived at by the Subordinate Judge is correct.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.