Supreme Court Disagrees with Rajni Tandon on Interpretation of 'Person Executing' under Section 32(a) of Registration Act, 1908. Power-of-Attorney Holder Not Executant; Authentication under Section 33 Required for Agent Presenting under Section 32(c).

Case Note & Summary

The present appeals before the Supreme Court of India arose from a civil suit concerning the validity of an Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 15.10.1990 purportedly executed by Ranveer Singh and his wife Gyanu Bai in favour of G. Rajender Kumar, and three subsequent sale deeds executed by the power-of-attorney holder in favour of his wife G. Shashikala. Ranveer Singh denied execution of the power of attorney in his written statement. The Trial Court framed issues regarding the validity of the power of attorney and sale deeds. On a revision filed before the High Court, additional issues were directed to be framed, including whether the power of attorney was authenticated as required under Sections 32, 33, 34 and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908, and whether the Registrar had recognised the power-of-attorney holder at the time of executing the sale deeds as required under Section 34(3)(c) read with Rule 53 of the Andhra Pradesh Rules. The High Court had placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Rajni Tandon vs. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar (2009) 14 SCC 782 in support of its conclusions. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was the interpretation of ‘person executing’ under Section 32(a) of the Registration Act, 1908, and whether a power-of-attorney holder who executes a document for the principal becomes the ‘executant’ and can present the document for registration without authentication of the power of attorney under Section 33. The appellant contended that the High Court’s reliance on Rajni Tandon was erroneous, while the respondent relied on the said decision. The Court examined the statutory scheme under Part VI of the Registration Act, detailing Sections 32, 33, 34 and 35. Section 32 enumerates the persons who may present documents for registration—clause (a) covers the person executing or claiming under the document, clause (b) the representative or assign, and clause (c) the agent of such person duly authorised by power-of-attorney executed and authenticated in the manner prescribed. Section 33 specifies the powers-of-attorney recognisable for the purposes of Section 32 and mandates authentication in the case of an agent. The Court also noted Rule 53 of the Andhra Pradesh Rules which states that even a registered power of attorney is not valid for registration purposes unless authenticated. The Supreme Court, after analysing the decision in Rajni Tandon, disagreed with the view expressed therein. In Rajni Tandon, a coordinate Bench had held that when a power-of-attorney holder executes a document under the terms of the power of attorney, he is the actual ‘executant’ under Section 32(a) and need not comply with the authentication requirements of Section 33. The Court, with due respect, held this view to be incorrect. It observed that a power-of-attorney holder executes the document not in his own name but in the name of the principal and signs on his behalf by virtue of the authority conferred. Consequently, the agent does not become the ‘executant’ under Section 32(a) but remains an agent presenting under Section 32(c), thereby requiring authentication of the power of attorney as mandated by Section 33. The Court emphasised that the registering officer has a duty under Section 34(3)(c) to satisfy himself of the right of the person appearing as agent. The judgment, however, was an interlocutory order and did not finally dispose of the appeal; the operative part was not included in the excerpted text. Nevertheless, the ratio laid down clarified the legal position that a power-of-attorney holder executing a document for the principal does not step into the shoes of the executant under Section 32(a), and the authentication requirements under Sections 33 and 34 remain mandatory.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Decision not clearly stated

Law Points