Full Judgment Text
Non-reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 851
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 9497-9501 OF 2025
(@ S.L.P.(C) Nos. 6685-6689 of 2023)
G. Kalawathi Bai (Died), per LRs. ….. Appellants
Versus
G. Shashikala (Died), per LRs., and others etc. ….. Respondents
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals turn open the validity of the registered Irrevocable
General Power of Attorney dated 15.10.1990 allegedly executed by
Ranveer Singh and his wife, Gyanu Bai, in favour of G. Rajender Kumar,
their tenant, and, in turn, the validity of the three registered sale deeds
dated 16.11.1990, 18.07.1991 and 16.08.1991 respectively executed by
G. Rajender Kumar, the power-of-attorney holder, in favour of his wife,
G. Shashikala.
Signature Not Verified
3. Ranveer Singh, in fact, denied the execution of this General Power
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2025.07.15
17:55:05 IST
Reason:
of Attorney, by way of his written statement filed in the suit. In that
1
context, the Trial Court framed an issue as to ‘whether Ranveer Singh
had appointed G. Rajender as his General Power of Attorney and
whether the sale deeds executed by G. Rajender in favour of
G.Shashikala as a General Power of Attorney were valid’. Thereafter,
pursuant to the revisionary order passed by the High Court, the very
admissibility of the General Power of Attorney dated 15.10.1990 and the
three sale deeds executed by the power-of-attorney holder was called in
question before the Trial Court and four additional issues were framed.
One of the additional issues was whether the alleged General Power of
Attorney dated 15.10.1990 was authenticated by the Registrar, as
required under Sections 32, 33, 34 and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908
(hereinafter, ‘the Act’). Another additional issue was as to whether the
Registrar had recognized G. Rajender Kumar, the alleged
power-of-attorney holder, at the time of execution of the three
sale deeds, as required under Section 34(3)(c) of the Act read with
Rule 53 of the Rules framed thereunder.
4. While so, during the course of arguments before us on
authentication of a power of attorney and the duty cast upon the
Registrar while registering a sale deed executed by a power-of-attorney
holder, the earlier decision of this Court in Rajni Tandon vs. Dulal
1
Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar and another was cited. In fact, the High Court
1
(2009) 14 SCC 782
2
placed reliance upon the said decision in support of its conclusions.
Perforce, we had to study the decision and its ratio . In that case, by way
of a notarized power of attorney, the principal had authorized the agent
named therein to transfer his property and execute necessary
documents. Pursuant thereto, the power-of-attorney holder executed a
sale deed and presented it for registration. This action was assailed on
the ground that the power-of-attorney holder had to present an
authenticated power-of-attorney before the Sub-Registrar to get the sale
deed registered. A co-ordinate Bench heard the case and framed the
issue falling for consideration as under:
’19. ………. whether a person who executes a document under
the terms of the power of attorney, is, insofar as the registration
office is concerned, the actual executant of the document and is
entitled under Section 32(a) to present it for registration and get
if registered.’
5. The Bench noted that one of the categories of persons eligible to
present a document for registration, in terms of Section 32 of the Act, is
the ‘person executing’ the document. The Bench opined that the
expression ‘person executing’, as used in Section 32(a) of the Act,
signifies the person actually executing the document and includes a
principal who executes by means of an agent. Elaborating further, the
Bench held that where a person holds a power of attorney which
authorizes him to execute a document as an agent for someone else
3
and he executes such document under the terms of the
power of attorney, he is, so far as the registration office is concerned, the
actual executant of the document and is entitled under Section 32(a) to
present it for registration and get it registered. The Bench further held
that, in such a situation, the duty cast on the registering officer under
Section 32 of the Act is only to satisfy himself that the document was
executed by the person by whom it purports to have been signed and
upon being so satisfied and upon being presented with the document to
be registered, the registering officer has to proceed with its registration.
The conclusion of the Bench, as summed up in paragraph 33 of the
reported decision, reads as under:
“33. Where a deed is executed by an agent for a principal
and the same agent signs, appears and presents the deed or
admits execution before the registering officer, that is not a
case of presentation under Section 32( c ) of the Act. As
mentioned earlier the provisions of Section 33 will come into
play only in cases where presentation is in terms of Section
32( c ) of the Act. In other words, only in case where the
person(s) signing the document cannot present the
document before the registering officer and gives a power of
attorney to another to present the document before the
registering officer and gives a power of attorney to another to
present the document that the provisions of Section 33 get
attracted. It is only in such a case, that the said power of
attorney has to be necessarily executed and authenticated in
the manner provided under Section 33(1)( a ) of the Act.”
6. In effect, the Bench held that, when a document is executed by an
agent for a principal in terms of a power of attorney and the same agent
4
signs, appears and presents the said document or admits its execution
before the registering officer, it would not be a presentation falling under
Section 32(c) of the Act and there would be no necessity for
‘authentication’ of the power of attorney, as required by Section 33(1)(a)
of the Act.
7. At this stage, it would be apposite to note the statutory scheme
obtaining under the Act. Part VI of the Act is titled ‘Of presenting
documents for registration’ and comprises Sections 32 to 39. To the
extent relevant, Sections 32, 33, 34 and 35 are extracted hereunder:
“ 32. Persons to present documents for registration. — Except
in the cases mentioned in sections 31, 88 and 89, every
document to be registered under this Act, whether such
registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the
proper registration-office, —
(a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in
the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the
decree or order, or
(b) by the representative or assign of such a person, or
(c) by the agent of such a person, representative or assign, duly
authorized by power-of-attorney executed and authenticated
in manner hereinafter mentioned.
33. Power-of-attorney recognizable for purposes of
section 32. — (1) For the purposes of section 32, the following
powers-of-attorney shall alone be recognized, namely: —
(a) if the principal at the time of executing the power-of-attorney
resides in any part of India in which this Act is for the time being
in force, a power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated
by the Registrar or Sub-Registrar within whose district or
sub-district the principal resides;
5
(b) if the principal at the time aforesaid resides in any part of India
in which this Act is not in force, a power-of-attorney executed
before and authenticated by any Magistrate;
(c) if the principal at the time aforesaid does not reside in India,
a power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated by a
Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or
Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government:
Provided that ……
Explanation . -- ……
(2) In the case of every such person the Registrar or
Sub-Registrar or Magistrate, as the case may be, if satisfied that
the power-of-attorney has been voluntarily executed by the
person purporting to be the principal, may attest the same without
requiring his personal attendance at the office or Court aforesaid.
(3) To obtain evidence as to the voluntary nature of the execution,
the Registrar or Sub-Registrar or Magistrate may either himself
go to the house of the person purporting to be the principal, or to
the jail in which he is confined, and examine him, or issue a
commission for his examination.
(4) Any power-of-attorney mentioned in this section may be
proved by the production of it without further proof when it
purports on the face of it to have been executed before and
authenticated by the person or Court hereinbefore mentioned in
that behalf.
34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer.— (1)
Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections 41,
43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered
under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or
their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid,
appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for
presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26:
Provided that, …….
(2) ……
(3) The registering officer shall thereupon—
6
(a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the
persons by whom it purports to have been executed;
(b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing
before him and alleging that they have executed the document;
and
(c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative,
assign or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to
appear.
(4) ……
(5) ……
35. Procedure on admission and denial of execution
respectively. — ( 1)(a) If all the persons executing the document
appear personally before the registering officer and are
personally known to him, or if he be otherwise satisfied that they
are the person they represent themselves to be, and if they all
admit the execution of the document, or
(b) if in the case of any person appearing by a representative,
assign or agent, such representative, assign or agent admits the
execution, or
(c) if the person executing the document is dead, and his
representative or assign appears before the registering officer
and admits the execution, the registering officer shall register the
document as directed in sections 58 to 61 inclusive.
(2) The registering officer may, in order to satisfy himself that the
persons appearing before him are the persons they represent
themselves to be, or for any other purpose contemplated by this
Act, examine any one present in his office.
(3) (a) ……, or
(b) ……, or
(c) ……,
……:
Provided that, ……:
Provided further that …….”
7
8. Section 32 of the Act details the persons competent to present a
document for registration before the registering authority. Section 32(a)
speaks of the person ‘executing’ or ‘claiming under’ the document
presenting it for registration while Section 32(b) refers to the
presentation by a representative or assign of such person. Section 32(c),
on the other hand, speaks of presentation of the document by the agent
of such person, representative or assign, who has been authorized to do
so by a power of attorney, executed and authenticated in the manner
prescribed.
9. As per Section 33 of the Act, the power of attorney recognizable
for the ‘purposes of Section 32’ has to fulfil the requirements set out
therein so as to validate it and, in consequence, the presentation of the
document by such power-of-attorney holder for registration. We may
also note that Rules 49 to 55 in Chapter XI of the Andhra Pradesh Rules
framed under the Act set out the requirements for compliance with the
mandate of Section 33 of the Act. Rule 49(i) pertains to a registered
power of attorney and states that the registering officer should satisfy
himself as to the identity of the party and, after obtaining his left thumb
impression against his signature, when necessary, authenticate it in the
prescribed format as set out therein. Rule 49(ii) relates to an
unregistered power of attorney and details the procedure of
authentication to be followed in such a case. Rule 53 categorically states
8
that even if a power of attorney is registered, it would not be valid for
registration purposes unless it is authenticated.
10. Further, Section 34(3)(a) of the Act casts a duty on the registering
officer to enquire whether or not the document presented for registration
was executed by the person(s) by whom it purports to have been
executed; satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing
before him and alleging that they have executed the document; and in
the case of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent,
satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear. Finally,
Section 35 of the Act speaks of the registering officer satisfying himself
as to the competence and identity of the person(s) presenting the
document for registration.
11. The view taken in Rajni Tandon ( supra ) is that, if the
power-of-attorney holder is authorized to execute a document, say, a
sale deed, he would then become the ‘executant’ of the sale deed and
can directly present it for registration under Section 32(a) of the Act and
it would not be necessary to apply the tests prescribed under the Act
apropos powers-of-attorney.
12. With due respect to the learned Judges who decided Rajni
Tandon ( supra ), we are unable to subscribe to this view. A
power-of-attorney holder executes a document, say, a sale deed, not in
his own name but in the name of his principal, and signs it on behalf of
9
the principal by virtue of the authority conferred upon him by the
power of attorney. He does not, thereby, become the ‘executant’ of the
sale deed as the said sale deed would invariably be executed in the
name of the principal, who would be shown therein as represented by
the power-of-attorney holder. The power-of-attorney holder, therefore,
does not become the ‘executant’ referred to in Section 32(a) of the Act
but would still remain the agent and, by virtue of being authorized by the
power of attorney, he merely executes and signs it on that principal’s
behalf.
13. That is the reason why, generally, a power of attorney not only
authorizes the power-of-attorney holder to execute documents of
transfer, i.e., sale deeds, on behalf of the principal, but further authorizes
that power-of-attorney holder to present such sale deeds for registration
before the registering officer. In the present case also, the alleged
Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 15.10.1990 contains like
clauses that read as under:
‘2. To Sign all the documents of transfer such as sale
Deed/s mortgage, lease, deeds, etc. in respect of all
above Property on my behalf.
3. To sell, mortgage or lease out the above property in
favour of any person or persons whomsoever as she likes
on my behalf.
4. To present and sign all the documents of transfer
Before the registering authority, by executing the same in
respect of the above property on my behalf.’
}}
10
Therefore, a power-of-attorney holder, having signed the document
as an agent of the principal pursuant to the authority conferred on him by
the power of attorney, then presents it for registration, having been
specifically authorized to do so by the power of attorney, and not
because he is the ‘executant’ of the document in terms of Section 32(a)
of the Act.
14. The contrary interpretation adopted and applied by the Bench in
Rajni Tandon ( supra ) would lead to a rather incongruous situation
where a notarized power-of-attorney holder, as in that case, who
executes a sale deed would become its ‘executant’ in terms of
Section 32(a) of the Act and would be entitled to get the sale deed
registered without further ado but, hypothetically and only for the
purpose of illustration without reference to the legal repercussions and
validity of such an act, if that notarized power-of-attorney holder then
executes a power-of-attorney, even if registered, in favour of any person
to merely present the sale deed executed by him for registration, that
registered power-of-attorney holder has to pass the tests set out in
Sections 32(c), 33, 34 and 35 of the Act! In effect, the merely
mechanical act of presentation of a document for registration would have
to be subjected to rigorous scrutiny but the weightier act of executing a
document transferring title in immovable property on behalf of the true
11
owner, on the strength of a power of attorney, which may even be
unregistered or just notarized, passes muster straightaway and need not
be subjected to any of the tests prescribed in the Act!
15. Further, the Bench did not note that Section 34(3) of the Act
requires the registering officer to conduct a detailed enquiry as to
whether the document presented for registration was executed by the
persons by whom it ‘purports to have been executed’ and also satisfy
himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and
alleging that they have executed the document. In addition,
Section 35(2) of the Act posits a duty upon the registering officer to
satisfy himself that the persons appearing before him are the persons
‘they represent themselves to be’.
16. Therefore, when G. Rajender Kumar, the power-of-attorney holder,
presented the three sale deeds in question for registration, wherein he
had signed on behalf of his alleged principals, viz., Ranveer Singh and
Gyanu Bai, the Registrar necessarily had to satisfy himself, not only
about his identity, but also as to whether G. Rajender Kumar had the
authority to sign the documents on their behalf. This, inevitably, would
require verification of the power of attorney, which would then have to
pass all the prescribed tests. In our opinion, elevating G. Rajender
Kumar, the alleged power-of-attorney holder, to the status of ‘the
executant’ of the sale deeds in question would be contrary to the recitals
12
in the sale deeds themselves, as the sale deeds name the principals,
viz., Ranveer Singh and Gyanu Bai, as the executants and not
G.Rajender Kumar, the power-of-attorney holder, who allegedly
represented them and signed the sale deeds on their behalf.
17. By merely signing a document on behalf of the principal, a
power-of-attorney holder does not lose his status as an agent of that
principal and become the ‘executant’ in his own right. Such an agent
would, therefore, continue to be covered by Section 32(c) of the Act as
he would then present the signed document for registration only as an
agent and must necessarily satisfy the requirements of Sections 32(c),
33. 34 and 35 of the Act and the rules framed in that context.
18. Rajni Tandon ( supra ) holds to the contrary and declares that a
power-of-attorney holder who signs a sale deed on behalf of the principal
would become the ‘executant’ thereof and would be covered by
Section 32(a) of the Act, whereby he/she need not fulfil the requirements
of Sections 32(c) and 33 of the Act and the contextual rules framed
thereunder. With all due respect, as we are unable to persuade
ourselves to agree with that view, we are of the considered opinion that
the said issue requires to be addressed and conclusively settled by a
larger Bench.
13
19. We, accordingly, direct the Registry to obtain necessary orders
from the Hon’ble The Chief Justice as to the expeditious listing of these
appeals before an appropriate Bench.
............................., J
(Sanjay Kumar)
............................., J
(K.V. Viswanathan)
July 15, 2025
New Delhi.
14
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 851
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 9497-9501 OF 2025
(@ S.L.P.(C) Nos. 6685-6689 of 2023)
G. Kalawathi Bai (Died), per LRs. ….. Appellants
Versus
G. Shashikala (Died), per LRs., and others etc. ….. Respondents
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals turn open the validity of the registered Irrevocable
General Power of Attorney dated 15.10.1990 allegedly executed by
Ranveer Singh and his wife, Gyanu Bai, in favour of G. Rajender Kumar,
their tenant, and, in turn, the validity of the three registered sale deeds
dated 16.11.1990, 18.07.1991 and 16.08.1991 respectively executed by
G. Rajender Kumar, the power-of-attorney holder, in favour of his wife,
G. Shashikala.
Signature Not Verified
3. Ranveer Singh, in fact, denied the execution of this General Power
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2025.07.15
17:55:05 IST
Reason:
of Attorney, by way of his written statement filed in the suit. In that
1
context, the Trial Court framed an issue as to ‘whether Ranveer Singh
had appointed G. Rajender as his General Power of Attorney and
whether the sale deeds executed by G. Rajender in favour of
G.Shashikala as a General Power of Attorney were valid’. Thereafter,
pursuant to the revisionary order passed by the High Court, the very
admissibility of the General Power of Attorney dated 15.10.1990 and the
three sale deeds executed by the power-of-attorney holder was called in
question before the Trial Court and four additional issues were framed.
One of the additional issues was whether the alleged General Power of
Attorney dated 15.10.1990 was authenticated by the Registrar, as
required under Sections 32, 33, 34 and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908
(hereinafter, ‘the Act’). Another additional issue was as to whether the
Registrar had recognized G. Rajender Kumar, the alleged
power-of-attorney holder, at the time of execution of the three
sale deeds, as required under Section 34(3)(c) of the Act read with
Rule 53 of the Rules framed thereunder.
4. While so, during the course of arguments before us on
authentication of a power of attorney and the duty cast upon the
Registrar while registering a sale deed executed by a power-of-attorney
holder, the earlier decision of this Court in Rajni Tandon vs. Dulal
1
Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar and another was cited. In fact, the High Court
1
(2009) 14 SCC 782
2
placed reliance upon the said decision in support of its conclusions.
Perforce, we had to study the decision and its ratio . In that case, by way
of a notarized power of attorney, the principal had authorized the agent
named therein to transfer his property and execute necessary
documents. Pursuant thereto, the power-of-attorney holder executed a
sale deed and presented it for registration. This action was assailed on
the ground that the power-of-attorney holder had to present an
authenticated power-of-attorney before the Sub-Registrar to get the sale
deed registered. A co-ordinate Bench heard the case and framed the
issue falling for consideration as under:
’19. ………. whether a person who executes a document under
the terms of the power of attorney, is, insofar as the registration
office is concerned, the actual executant of the document and is
entitled under Section 32(a) to present it for registration and get
if registered.’
5. The Bench noted that one of the categories of persons eligible to
present a document for registration, in terms of Section 32 of the Act, is
the ‘person executing’ the document. The Bench opined that the
expression ‘person executing’, as used in Section 32(a) of the Act,
signifies the person actually executing the document and includes a
principal who executes by means of an agent. Elaborating further, the
Bench held that where a person holds a power of attorney which
authorizes him to execute a document as an agent for someone else
3
and he executes such document under the terms of the
power of attorney, he is, so far as the registration office is concerned, the
actual executant of the document and is entitled under Section 32(a) to
present it for registration and get it registered. The Bench further held
that, in such a situation, the duty cast on the registering officer under
Section 32 of the Act is only to satisfy himself that the document was
executed by the person by whom it purports to have been signed and
upon being so satisfied and upon being presented with the document to
be registered, the registering officer has to proceed with its registration.
The conclusion of the Bench, as summed up in paragraph 33 of the
reported decision, reads as under:
“33. Where a deed is executed by an agent for a principal
and the same agent signs, appears and presents the deed or
admits execution before the registering officer, that is not a
case of presentation under Section 32( c ) of the Act. As
mentioned earlier the provisions of Section 33 will come into
play only in cases where presentation is in terms of Section
32( c ) of the Act. In other words, only in case where the
person(s) signing the document cannot present the
document before the registering officer and gives a power of
attorney to another to present the document before the
registering officer and gives a power of attorney to another to
present the document that the provisions of Section 33 get
attracted. It is only in such a case, that the said power of
attorney has to be necessarily executed and authenticated in
the manner provided under Section 33(1)( a ) of the Act.”
6. In effect, the Bench held that, when a document is executed by an
agent for a principal in terms of a power of attorney and the same agent
4
signs, appears and presents the said document or admits its execution
before the registering officer, it would not be a presentation falling under
Section 32(c) of the Act and there would be no necessity for
‘authentication’ of the power of attorney, as required by Section 33(1)(a)
of the Act.
7. At this stage, it would be apposite to note the statutory scheme
obtaining under the Act. Part VI of the Act is titled ‘Of presenting
documents for registration’ and comprises Sections 32 to 39. To the
extent relevant, Sections 32, 33, 34 and 35 are extracted hereunder:
“ 32. Persons to present documents for registration. — Except
in the cases mentioned in sections 31, 88 and 89, every
document to be registered under this Act, whether such
registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the
proper registration-office, —
(a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in
the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the
decree or order, or
(b) by the representative or assign of such a person, or
(c) by the agent of such a person, representative or assign, duly
authorized by power-of-attorney executed and authenticated
in manner hereinafter mentioned.
33. Power-of-attorney recognizable for purposes of
section 32. — (1) For the purposes of section 32, the following
powers-of-attorney shall alone be recognized, namely: —
(a) if the principal at the time of executing the power-of-attorney
resides in any part of India in which this Act is for the time being
in force, a power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated
by the Registrar or Sub-Registrar within whose district or
sub-district the principal resides;
5
(b) if the principal at the time aforesaid resides in any part of India
in which this Act is not in force, a power-of-attorney executed
before and authenticated by any Magistrate;
(c) if the principal at the time aforesaid does not reside in India,
a power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated by a
Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or
Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government:
Provided that ……
Explanation . -- ……
(2) In the case of every such person the Registrar or
Sub-Registrar or Magistrate, as the case may be, if satisfied that
the power-of-attorney has been voluntarily executed by the
person purporting to be the principal, may attest the same without
requiring his personal attendance at the office or Court aforesaid.
(3) To obtain evidence as to the voluntary nature of the execution,
the Registrar or Sub-Registrar or Magistrate may either himself
go to the house of the person purporting to be the principal, or to
the jail in which he is confined, and examine him, or issue a
commission for his examination.
(4) Any power-of-attorney mentioned in this section may be
proved by the production of it without further proof when it
purports on the face of it to have been executed before and
authenticated by the person or Court hereinbefore mentioned in
that behalf.
34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer.— (1)
Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections 41,
43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered
under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or
their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid,
appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for
presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26:
Provided that, …….
(2) ……
(3) The registering officer shall thereupon—
6
(a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the
persons by whom it purports to have been executed;
(b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing
before him and alleging that they have executed the document;
and
(c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative,
assign or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to
appear.
(4) ……
(5) ……
35. Procedure on admission and denial of execution
respectively. — ( 1)(a) If all the persons executing the document
appear personally before the registering officer and are
personally known to him, or if he be otherwise satisfied that they
are the person they represent themselves to be, and if they all
admit the execution of the document, or
(b) if in the case of any person appearing by a representative,
assign or agent, such representative, assign or agent admits the
execution, or
(c) if the person executing the document is dead, and his
representative or assign appears before the registering officer
and admits the execution, the registering officer shall register the
document as directed in sections 58 to 61 inclusive.
(2) The registering officer may, in order to satisfy himself that the
persons appearing before him are the persons they represent
themselves to be, or for any other purpose contemplated by this
Act, examine any one present in his office.
(3) (a) ……, or
(b) ……, or
(c) ……,
……:
Provided that, ……:
Provided further that …….”
7
8. Section 32 of the Act details the persons competent to present a
document for registration before the registering authority. Section 32(a)
speaks of the person ‘executing’ or ‘claiming under’ the document
presenting it for registration while Section 32(b) refers to the
presentation by a representative or assign of such person. Section 32(c),
on the other hand, speaks of presentation of the document by the agent
of such person, representative or assign, who has been authorized to do
so by a power of attorney, executed and authenticated in the manner
prescribed.
9. As per Section 33 of the Act, the power of attorney recognizable
for the ‘purposes of Section 32’ has to fulfil the requirements set out
therein so as to validate it and, in consequence, the presentation of the
document by such power-of-attorney holder for registration. We may
also note that Rules 49 to 55 in Chapter XI of the Andhra Pradesh Rules
framed under the Act set out the requirements for compliance with the
mandate of Section 33 of the Act. Rule 49(i) pertains to a registered
power of attorney and states that the registering officer should satisfy
himself as to the identity of the party and, after obtaining his left thumb
impression against his signature, when necessary, authenticate it in the
prescribed format as set out therein. Rule 49(ii) relates to an
unregistered power of attorney and details the procedure of
authentication to be followed in such a case. Rule 53 categorically states
8
that even if a power of attorney is registered, it would not be valid for
registration purposes unless it is authenticated.
10. Further, Section 34(3)(a) of the Act casts a duty on the registering
officer to enquire whether or not the document presented for registration
was executed by the person(s) by whom it purports to have been
executed; satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing
before him and alleging that they have executed the document; and in
the case of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent,
satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear. Finally,
Section 35 of the Act speaks of the registering officer satisfying himself
as to the competence and identity of the person(s) presenting the
document for registration.
11. The view taken in Rajni Tandon ( supra ) is that, if the
power-of-attorney holder is authorized to execute a document, say, a
sale deed, he would then become the ‘executant’ of the sale deed and
can directly present it for registration under Section 32(a) of the Act and
it would not be necessary to apply the tests prescribed under the Act
apropos powers-of-attorney.
12. With due respect to the learned Judges who decided Rajni
Tandon ( supra ), we are unable to subscribe to this view. A
power-of-attorney holder executes a document, say, a sale deed, not in
his own name but in the name of his principal, and signs it on behalf of
9
the principal by virtue of the authority conferred upon him by the
power of attorney. He does not, thereby, become the ‘executant’ of the
sale deed as the said sale deed would invariably be executed in the
name of the principal, who would be shown therein as represented by
the power-of-attorney holder. The power-of-attorney holder, therefore,
does not become the ‘executant’ referred to in Section 32(a) of the Act
but would still remain the agent and, by virtue of being authorized by the
power of attorney, he merely executes and signs it on that principal’s
behalf.
13. That is the reason why, generally, a power of attorney not only
authorizes the power-of-attorney holder to execute documents of
transfer, i.e., sale deeds, on behalf of the principal, but further authorizes
that power-of-attorney holder to present such sale deeds for registration
before the registering officer. In the present case also, the alleged
Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 15.10.1990 contains like
clauses that read as under:
‘2. To Sign all the documents of transfer such as sale
Deed/s mortgage, lease, deeds, etc. in respect of all
above Property on my behalf.
3. To sell, mortgage or lease out the above property in
favour of any person or persons whomsoever as she likes
on my behalf.
4. To present and sign all the documents of transfer
Before the registering authority, by executing the same in
respect of the above property on my behalf.’
}}
10
Therefore, a power-of-attorney holder, having signed the document
as an agent of the principal pursuant to the authority conferred on him by
the power of attorney, then presents it for registration, having been
specifically authorized to do so by the power of attorney, and not
because he is the ‘executant’ of the document in terms of Section 32(a)
of the Act.
14. The contrary interpretation adopted and applied by the Bench in
Rajni Tandon ( supra ) would lead to a rather incongruous situation
where a notarized power-of-attorney holder, as in that case, who
executes a sale deed would become its ‘executant’ in terms of
Section 32(a) of the Act and would be entitled to get the sale deed
registered without further ado but, hypothetically and only for the
purpose of illustration without reference to the legal repercussions and
validity of such an act, if that notarized power-of-attorney holder then
executes a power-of-attorney, even if registered, in favour of any person
to merely present the sale deed executed by him for registration, that
registered power-of-attorney holder has to pass the tests set out in
Sections 32(c), 33, 34 and 35 of the Act! In effect, the merely
mechanical act of presentation of a document for registration would have
to be subjected to rigorous scrutiny but the weightier act of executing a
document transferring title in immovable property on behalf of the true
11
owner, on the strength of a power of attorney, which may even be
unregistered or just notarized, passes muster straightaway and need not
be subjected to any of the tests prescribed in the Act!
15. Further, the Bench did not note that Section 34(3) of the Act
requires the registering officer to conduct a detailed enquiry as to
whether the document presented for registration was executed by the
persons by whom it ‘purports to have been executed’ and also satisfy
himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and
alleging that they have executed the document. In addition,
Section 35(2) of the Act posits a duty upon the registering officer to
satisfy himself that the persons appearing before him are the persons
‘they represent themselves to be’.
16. Therefore, when G. Rajender Kumar, the power-of-attorney holder,
presented the three sale deeds in question for registration, wherein he
had signed on behalf of his alleged principals, viz., Ranveer Singh and
Gyanu Bai, the Registrar necessarily had to satisfy himself, not only
about his identity, but also as to whether G. Rajender Kumar had the
authority to sign the documents on their behalf. This, inevitably, would
require verification of the power of attorney, which would then have to
pass all the prescribed tests. In our opinion, elevating G. Rajender
Kumar, the alleged power-of-attorney holder, to the status of ‘the
executant’ of the sale deeds in question would be contrary to the recitals
12
in the sale deeds themselves, as the sale deeds name the principals,
viz., Ranveer Singh and Gyanu Bai, as the executants and not
G.Rajender Kumar, the power-of-attorney holder, who allegedly
represented them and signed the sale deeds on their behalf.
17. By merely signing a document on behalf of the principal, a
power-of-attorney holder does not lose his status as an agent of that
principal and become the ‘executant’ in his own right. Such an agent
would, therefore, continue to be covered by Section 32(c) of the Act as
he would then present the signed document for registration only as an
agent and must necessarily satisfy the requirements of Sections 32(c),
33. 34 and 35 of the Act and the rules framed in that context.
18. Rajni Tandon ( supra ) holds to the contrary and declares that a
power-of-attorney holder who signs a sale deed on behalf of the principal
would become the ‘executant’ thereof and would be covered by
Section 32(a) of the Act, whereby he/she need not fulfil the requirements
of Sections 32(c) and 33 of the Act and the contextual rules framed
thereunder. With all due respect, as we are unable to persuade
ourselves to agree with that view, we are of the considered opinion that
the said issue requires to be addressed and conclusively settled by a
larger Bench.
13
19. We, accordingly, direct the Registry to obtain necessary orders
from the Hon’ble The Chief Justice as to the expeditious listing of these
appeals before an appropriate Bench.
............................., J
(Sanjay Kumar)
............................., J
(K.V. Viswanathan)
July 15, 2025
New Delhi.
14