Donee’s acts in excess of power given does not bind the principal.
The plaintiff also relied upon certain printed circulars, Exhibit C series, purporting to have been sent by defendants' mother to all the customers of the business, asking them to continue to patronise the business as usual. But I am rather doubtful, in the absence of any evidence to show that these circulars were issued under her instructions, whether they are admissible in evidence against the defendants. There is no doubt evidence to show that Muthiah Chetti gave orders to the printer in her name to print the circulars. But he cannot bind her by his acts to a larger extent than he was empowered to do under the power-of-attorney. If the power-of-attorney does not give him, power to carry on the business except with limitations, the issuing of the circular in her name, in which circular it is recited that he has been given power to continue the business without reservation, cannot bind the defendants. However, whether Exhibit C series are admissible or not, I think (as I said before) that the power-of-attorney itself does indicate that she had resolved upon carrying on the business as usual and gave her agents power to, so carry on the business.
Madras High Court
Malaiperumal Chettiar, Minor, ... vs Arunaohalla Chettiar, By His ... on 22 March, 1917
Equivalent citations: 41 Ind Cas 224
Bench: W Ayling, S Aiyar
