Registration Act Does Not Contemplate Inquiry Into Whether Power Of Attorney Holder Who Executed Document Had Original Copy Of Power Of Attorney Amar Nath Vs Gian Chand

DATE OF JUDGEMENT
28th January 2022

JUDGES
Justice K. M. Joseph
Justice P. Sri Narasimha

PARTIES
Appellant/Petitioner: Amar Nath
Respondent: Gian Chand

SUBJECT

In the present case, an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of India, against the order of the High Court which held that the production of a true copy of Power of Attorney is essential for the execution of sales deed under section 18 of the Registration Act 1908.

OVERVIEW

1. The dispute in the present case involved 2 Kanals, 10 Marlas, and odd land belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with the first defendant for the sale of the said property for a consideration of Rs. 55,000/-. The plaintiff executed a Power of Attorney (POA) in favour of the second defendant for the purpose of selling the land. When the first defendant failed to arrange the money, the negotiation fell through, the plaintiff cancelled the sale agreement. The original POA was also surrendered by the second defendant.
2. However, the second defendant applied for a copy of the POA and fraudulently in collusion with the first defendant executed the sale deed on 28.04.1987 for Rs. 30,000/. The plaintiff contended that as the original POA stood cancelled, the sale deed executed was null and void. The plaintiff then filed a suit for a declaration by way of permanent injunction that he is the owner in possession of that property.
3. The High Court held that the Second Defendant was not competent to execute the sale deed as the POA granted to the second defendant on 28.1.1987 was cancelled on 28.2.1987. The High Court further stated that the language of Section 18 of the Registration Act made it clear that it was necessary for the Registering Authority to see the true copy of the special power of attorney. The Court also took note of the evidence given by PW6 to conclude that at the time of the cancellation of the power of attorney, First Defendant No was present, hence, the first defendant was also aware of the cancellation of POA. The High Court decreed the suit by declaring the plaintiff as the owner in possession of the land and the mutation showing the sale in favour of the First Defendant was declared null and void.
4. The learned counsel for the First defendant argued that the registered POA could have been cancelled only by a registered document as registration of a document brings the same in the public domain and the registered document must be cancelled by the same means. Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Daya Shanker &Ors. v. Rajendra Kumar and Ors. .
5. The counsel for the first defendant also referred to section 32A of the Registration Act to state that under the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff, the second defendant was competent to execute the sale deed. Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar and Another.
6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff referred to section 33(4) of the Registration Act which contemplates that the original POA shall be produced at the time of presentation of the sale deed but the same was not produced by the second defendant. The counsel for the appellant further contended that the entire process of making an application by the second defendant for a copy, its preparation, and receipt, shows fraud and collusion between the Defendants and the Sub-Registrar (PW4) and officials of the Registering Authority.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Registration Act 1908

• Section 18- Documents of which registration is optional.
• Section 18A- Document for Registration to be accompanied by a true copy.

ISSUES

1. Whether the production of the original power of attorney before the Registering Authority is essential for the execution of the sale deed?
2. Whether the second defendant surrender POA before execution of the sales deed?

JUDGMENT

1. The Court firstly noted the fact that in the state of Himachal Pradesh, where the case arises, the government by amendment to the registration act has inserted section 18A contemplates the production of the true copy of the document, which is sought to be registered. In the present case, it was the sale deed that was to be registered and not the POA. Hence, the High Court erred in its judgment to hold that Section 18A contemplated the production of a true copy of the power of attorney.
2. The Court in light of the provisions of the Registration Act rejected the contention of the plaintiff that a certified copy of POA is necessary for the execution of the sale deed.
3. Adjudicating the second issue, the Court referred to the letter by the plaintiff, dated 16.06.1987, addressed to the second defendant. The plaintiff in the letter spoke about the sale of land and requested the second defendant to hasten the process as the plaintiff was in dire need of money. In the letter, there was no mention of the surrender of POA on 02.02.1987 or its cancellation.
4. Keeping the contents of the letter in mind, the Court concluded that the case of the plaintiff that he had cancelled the power of attorney by writing the word ‘cancelled’ on 02.02.1987, upon it being surrendered by the second defendant, cannot be accepted.
5. The Court, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal.

CONCLUSION

In the present case, the Supreme Court concluded that it is not necessary to produce an original copy of Power of Attorney when registration another document before the registering authority. The intent of such judgment is in line with Section 18A of the registration act to save the common people from unnecessary paperwork in property disputes.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement