Sub-Registrar must register subsequent settlement despite disputed power-of-attorney conveyance, without prejudicing parties’ civil rights.

The petitioner had purchased the subject property under Document No. 9666 of 2007 dated 13 December 2007 from S. Tamilarasi, who acted as the power-of-attorney holder of Maniyan Navalankiyar.

The principal, Maniyan Navalankiyar, had died on 3 March 1997.

The petitioner thereafter executed a settlement deed dated 24 August 2026 in favour of his son and presented it for registration under Temporary Registration No. TP/300744322/2026.

The Sub-Registrar refused registration through Refusal Check Slip No. RFL/Thiruvarambur/246/2026 dated 24 August 2026, on the ground that the power-of-attorney holder had conveyed the property after the death of the principal, allegedly contrary to Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The petitioner challenged the refusal and sought a direction to register and release the settlement deed.

1. Whether the Sub-Registrar was justified in refusing registration of the petitioner’s settlement deed on the ground that the underlying conveyance was executed by a power-of-attorney holder after the death of the principal and was therefore affected by Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the Sub-Registrar to register the settlement deed and release it upon completion of the registration process?

The Court considered Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, under which an agency ordinarily terminates upon the death of the principal.

It also followed the approach adopted in W.P.(MD) Nos. 24612 and 24613 of 2026, dated 27 August 2026, where registration was directed despite similar objections concerning posthumous acts of a power-of-attorney holder, while preserving the objectors’ rights under Section 201 of the Contract Act and Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

The Court further relied on its earlier orders in W.P.(MD) Nos. 22061 of 2023, 4421 and 4422 of 2025, and 18608 of 2025, in which positive directions to register documents had been issued in comparable circumstances.

The Court found that the facts of the present case were materially similar to those considered in the earlier writ proceedings involving the same principal, power-of-attorney transaction, and objection based on the principal’s death.

Although the underlying conveyance had been executed after the principal’s death and the objection invoked Section 201 of the Contract Act, the Court held that such an issue did not justify refusal of registration in the circumstances.

Applying the ratio of the earlier decisions mutatis mutandis, the Court treated the competing claims concerning the validity and effect of the power-of-attorney transaction as matters that could be pursued by the private respondents, rather than as a basis for the Sub-Registrar to decline registration.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.