1. Factual Background and Procedural History
The present appeals concerned the validity of an Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 15 October 1990 allegedly executed by Ranveer Singh and his wife, Gyanu Bai, in favour of G. Rajender Kumar, their tenant. Acting under this power, Rajender Kumar executed three registered sale deeds in favour of his wife, G. Shashikala, on 16 November 1990, 18 July 1991, and 16 August 1991.
Ranveer Singh denied executing the Power of Attorney altogether, asserting that the document was forged. The dispute thus turned upon (a) the authenticity of the Power of Attorney and (b) the validity of the subsequent sale deeds executed under it.
The Trial Court framed issues concerning:
- Whether Ranveer Singh had indeed appointed G. Rajender as his General Power of Attorney;
- Whether the sale deeds executed by him as attorney were valid; and
- Whether the Power of Attorney was properly authenticated as required under Sections 32 to 35 of the Registration Act, 1908.
During proceedings, the High Court upheld the admissibility of the Power of Attorney and sale deeds, relying on the precedent of Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar (2009) 14 SCC 782, which treated a Power of Attorney holder who executes a sale deed as the “executant” capable of presenting it for registration under Section 32(a).
Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, challenging this interpretation.
On 15 July 2025, a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan delivered judgment doubting the correctness of Rajni Tandon and referring the issue to a larger Bench for authoritative resolution.
2. Identification of Legal Issues
The Supreme Court addressed the following principal legal question:
Issue:
Whether a person executing a document under a Power of Attorney can be regarded as the “person executing” (i.e., the executant) under Section 32(a) of the Registration Act, 1908, thereby enabling him to present the document for registration directly, without satisfying the requirements of Sections 32(c), 33, 34, and 35?
Sub-issues flowing from this were:
- Does a Power of Attorney holder executing a deed act in his own right or merely as an agent of the principal?
- Can a notarized or unregistered Power of Attorney suffice for registration of sale deeds executed under it?
- What is the scope of the Registering Officer’s enquiry under Section 34(3) concerning identity and authority?
3. Arguments of the Parties
Appellants (Legal representatives of G. Kalawathi Bai):
- The alleged Power of Attorney was unauthenticated and not executed in compliance with Sections 32–35 of the Act.
- The Sub-Registrar failed to verify the authority of the purported attorney as required under Section 34(3)(c) and the corresponding Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules.
- The reliance on Rajni Tandon was misplaced, as it conflated the principal’s role as executant with that of the attorney merely signing on the principal’s behalf.
- An attorney’s act of signing does not make him the “person executing” under Section 32(a) but merely an agent under Section 32(c).
Respondents (Legal representatives of G. Shashikala):
- The sale deeds were validly executed under a duly registered Power of Attorney.
- Once the Power of Attorney holder executes the document, he effectively becomes the “executant” under Section 32(a), consistent with the ratio in Rajni Tandon.
- Authentication under Section 33(1)(a) was unnecessary since the presentation of the document was by the same person who executed it.
- Therefore, the registration could not be faulted.
4. Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court embarked on a comprehensive analysis of Sections 32–35 of the Registration Act, clarifying the legislative intent behind each provision.
(a) Statutory Scheme
- Section 32(a): permits the person executing or claiming under the document to present it for registration.
- Section 32(c): permits an agent to present the document if duly authorized by a Power of Attorney executed and authenticated under Section 33.
- Section 33: defines the manner of authentication — before a Registrar, Sub-Registrar, or Magistrate — depending on the principal’s residence.
- Sections 34 and 35: impose duties on the registering officer to verify the identity, capacity, and authority of persons presenting documents.
(b) Disagreement with Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar
The Court expressly disagreed with Rajni Tandon, observing that the earlier bench had wrongly elevated the attorney to the status of an “executant.”
Justice Sanjay Kumar noted:
“A Power of Attorney holder executes and signs a document not in his own capacity but on behalf of the principal; the principal remains the true executant.”
The attorney is thus merely an agent, and presentation of the document must conform to Section 32(c) — not Section 32(a).
(c) Doctrinal Clarification
- The executant of a document is the person in whose name and on whose behalf it is executed.
- The act of signing under a Power of Attorney is a representational act, not an act of execution in personal capacity.
- To hold otherwise would undermine the stringent safeguards under Sections 33–35 meant to prevent fraudulent conveyances through unauthorized or forged powers of attorney.
(d) Policy Concern: Avoiding “Incongruous Situations”
The Bench warned that treating an attorney as an “executant” would produce anomalies:
- An unregistered or even notarized Power of Attorney holder could execute and register a sale deed without authentication, while a subsequent agent merely presenting it would face statutory scrutiny.
- This would defeat the public verification objective underlying Sections 33–35 and compromise land registration integrity.
(e) Registrar’s Duty Under Section 34(3)
The Court emphasized that Registering Officers must:
- Verify whether the document was executed by the persons it purports to have been executed by;
- Satisfy themselves of the identity of such persons; and
- Confirm the agent’s authority by examining the Power of Attorney’s authenticity.
Failure to perform this duty would render the registration process defective.
(f) Referral to Larger Bench
Acknowledging that Rajni Tandon remains binding precedent, the Bench refrained from overruling it directly but expressed inability to agree with its reasoning.
Accordingly, the matter was referred to a larger bench for authoritative settlement of the question.
5. Final Conclusion and Holding
- A Power of Attorney holder is not the “executant” under Section 32(a) of the Registration Act, 1908.
- The attorney acts only as an agent under Section 32(c) and must meet all conditions under Sections 32(c), 33, 34, and 35.
- The contrary view in Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar (2009) 14 SCC 782 was doubted.
- The issue was referred to a larger bench for final adjudication.
The judgment thus reinforces the principle that agency does not convert into ownership, and execution on behalf of another does not transfer executant status.
FAQs:
1. Can a Power of Attorney holder register a property sale deed in India?
Yes, but only if the Power of Attorney is duly executed and authenticated as required under Sections 32(c) and 33 of the Registration Act. The agent must act within the scope of authority granted.
2. Is a Power of Attorney holder considered the executant of a sale deed?
No. The Supreme Court clarified that the principal remains the executant, while the attorney is merely an agent signing on behalf of the principal.
3. What are the Registrar’s duties during property registration?
Under Section 34(3) of the Registration Act, the Registrar must verify the identity of the parties, ensure genuine execution, and confirm that any agent has valid authority to act.
4. What is the difference between Section 32(a) and Section 32(c) of the Registration Act?
Section 32(a) allows the executant to present a document; Section 32(c) applies when an agent presents it under a properly authenticated Power of Attorney.
5. Why did the Supreme Court refer the issue to a larger bench?
Because the earlier ruling in Rajni Tandon treated a Power of Attorney holder as an executant under Section 32(a), a view the present bench found inconsistent with statutory text and legislative purpose.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.