# Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 341
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-05-19
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 46666 of 2013
- **Bench:** Abhinav Upadhya, Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravindra-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45832
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Indian Registration Act,
1908 - Sections 17 - Registration of
three sale-deeds rejected -- Documents of
which registration is compulsory , Sections 18
- Documents of which registration is optional,
Sections 32 - Persons to present documents
for registration and Sections 33 - Power of
Attorney recognizable for purposes of Section
32 - Power of Attorney Act, 1882 - Section 4
- Deposit of original instruments, creating
powers-of-attorney - Indian Stamp Act,1899
- no bar in the Act for execution of sale deed
on the basis of unregistered power-ofattorney -object of registration - designed to
guard
against
fraud
by
obtaining
a
contemporaneus
publication
and
an
unimpeachable record of each document -
instant case - no allegation of fraud has been
raised - duty cast on the registering officer
under Section 32 of the Act -only to satisfy
himself that the document was executed by
the person by whom it purports to have been
signed - registrar upon being so satisfied and
upon being presented with a document to be
registered
had
to
proceed
with
the
registration of the same.(Para-19,32)
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
one husband and wife (couple) purchased plot
- names recorded in the revenue records by
registered sale deed - couple executed a power
of attorney in favour of petitioner - petitioner
presented three sale deeds to be registered in
the office of the Sub Registrar in respect of the
said property - which was bequeathed upon the
petitioner through the Power of Attorney - saledeed presented before the Sub Registrar to
register them under the Registration Act, 1908 -
Sub Registrar in an illegal manner,arbitrary,
without application of mind and exceeding his
jurisdiction has rejected the registration of all
the aforesaid three sale-deeds . (Para-3,4)

HELD:- Grounds taken in the impugned order
in rejecting the registration of three sale-deeds,
prima faice, as per the record appears to be
illegal and without application of mind and the
Deputy Registrar (I) has not considered the
provisions contained under Section 4 of the
Power of Attorney Act, 1882 and Sections 17,
18, 32 and 33 of the Indian Registration Act,
1908 - matter remanded back to the Deputy
Registrar (I) to pass an appropriate order for
the registration of three sale-deed afresh. (Para
-33,34)

Petition allowed.(E-7)

List of cases cited:-

1.Goswami Malti Vahuji Maharaj Vs Purushottam
Lal Poddar AIR (1984) Cal 297

2.Ram Gopal Vs L. Mohan Lal & ors. AIR (1960)
P & H 226

3.Rajni Tandaon Vs Dulal Ranjan Gosh Dastidar
& anr. (2009) 14 SCC 782

## Text

_Characters 0–39,908 of 45,111. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39908 for what follows._

6 All. Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
341
or revocation shall become void, therefore
the arm licence has to be restored
considering the provisions contained under
Sections 17(3) and 17(7) of the Arms Act,
1959. The fire arm licence of the petitioner
could not have been cancelled in public interest
as has been done in the present case, no incident
of breach of security of the public peace or
public safety at the behest of the petitioner has
been pointed out. The petitioner has no previous
criminal history. The police report on the basis
of which the proceedings were initiated against
the petitioner does not indicate that the
petitioner had utilized the fire arm during the
said incicent, no such averment was made by
the authorities concerned. There is nothing on
record to establish that petitioner was involved
in the act resulting in disturbance to public
peace or public safety.

20. In view of the well-settled legal
proposition and the relevant case law referred
above and the provisions contained under
Sections 17(3) and 17(7) of the Arms Act, 1959
and going through the entire facts, this Court is
of the view that the impugned order dated
10.04.2017 passed by District Magistrate,
Bareilly and order dated 01.11.2019 passed by
the Commissioner, Bareilly Region, Bareilly
are not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore
both the orders are hereby quashed. The writ
petition is allowed.

21. The matter is remitted back to the
District Magistrate, Bareily, respndent No.3 to
pass a reasoned and speaking order afresh, for
restoring the arms licence of the petitioner in
accordance with law, preferrably within a
period of two months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order
before him and communicate the same to the
petitioner forthwith.

22. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)06ILR A341
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.05.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABHINAV UPADHYA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Writ-C No. 46666 of 2013

Ravindra Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Parul
Srivastava,
Sri
Anupam
Kulshreshtha, Sri Namit Srivastava, Sri
Shashi Nandan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Indian Registration Act,
1908 - Sections 17 - Registration of
three sale-deeds rejected -- Documents of
which registration is compulsory , Sections 18
- Documents of which registration is optional,
Sections 32 - Persons to present documents
for registration and Sections 33 - Power of
Attorney recognizable for purposes of Section
32 - Power of Attorney Act, 1882 - Section 4
- Deposit of original instruments, creating
powers-of-attorney - Indian Stamp Act,1899
- no bar in the Act for execution of sale deed
on the basis of unregistered power-ofattorney -object of registration - designed to
guard
against
fraud
by
obtaining
a
contemporaneus
publication
and
an
unimpeachable record of each document -
instant case - no allegation of fraud has been
raised - duty cast on the registering officer
under Section 32 of the Act -only to satisfy
himself that the document was executed by
the person by whom it purports to have been
signed - registrar upon being so satisfied and
upon being presented with a document to be
registered
had
to
proceed
with
the
registration of the same.(Para-19,32)
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
one husband and wife (couple) purchased plot
- names recorded in the revenue records by
registered sale deed - couple executed a power
of attorney in favour of petitioner - petitioner
presented three sale deeds to be registered in
the office of the Sub Registrar in respect of the
said property - which was bequeathed upon the
petitioner through the Power of Attorney - saledeed presented before the Sub Registrar to
register them under the Registration Act, 1908 -
Sub Registrar in an illegal manner,arbitrary,
without application of mind and exceeding his
jurisdiction has rejected the registration of all
the aforesaid three sale-deeds . (Para-3,4)

HELD:- Grounds taken in the impugned order
in rejecting the registration of three sale-deeds,
prima faice, as per the record appears to be
illegal and without application of mind and the
Deputy Registrar (I) has not considered the
provisions contained under Section 4 of the
Power of Attorney Act, 1882 and Sections 17,
18, 32 and 33 of the Indian Registration Act,
1908 - matter remanded back to the Deputy
Registrar (I) to pass an appropriate order for
the registration of three sale-deed afresh. (Para
-33,34)

Petition allowed.(E-7)

List of cases cited:-

1.Goswami Malti Vahuji Maharaj Vs Purushottam
Lal Poddar AIR (1984) Cal 297

2.Ram Gopal Vs L. Mohan Lal & ors. AIR (1960)
P & H 226

3.Rajni Tandaon Vs Dulal Ranjan Gosh Dastidar
& anr. (2009) 14 SCC 782

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anupam
Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that he does not want to press the prayer
no.1 of the writ petition and confined his relief in
respect of prayer nos. 2 to 5 only.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued
that one Shri Rakesh Chandra Sharma and his
wife Smt. Kunti Sharma had purchased plot
nos.26 and 27 measuring area 324 Sq. meters in
Khasra Nos. 86/3, 86/2, 83, 84/2, 87/2 situated in
village Navada, District Bareilly by registered sale
deed dated 14.02.1989 and thereafter, their names
were recorded in the revenue records. Thereafter,
the aforesaid couple on 14.03.2004 executed a
power of attorney in favour of the petitioner in
respect of the said property. It is also submitted
that in the aforesaid power of attorney, the
signatures of the persons were attested by a
notary/ advocate whose registration number and
all the details were mentioned in the seal on the
stamp paper. Thereafter, petitioner on 29.07.2013
presented three sale deeds to be registered in the
office of the Sub Registrar Ist, Bareilly
(respondent no.3) in respect of the same property,
which was bequeathed upon the petitioner through
the Power of Attorney dated 14.03.2004 by Shri
Rakesh Chandra Sharma and Smt. Kunti Sharma.
It was further argued that the first sale deed was in
respect of area 108.693 square meters, second sale
deed was in respect of area 108.3 Sq. meters and
the third sale-deed was in respect of the area
107.02 sq meters and the total area of the above
sale-deed is 324 sq. meters, for which area, the
petitioner has been given Power of Attorney by
the aforesaid couples.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that on the presentation of
the
aforesaid
sale-deed
before
the
respondent No.3 to register them under the
Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred
to as the Act), the respondent No.3 in an
illegal
manner
and
exceeding
his
jurisdiction has rejected the registration of
all the aforesaid three sale-deeds vide order
dated 13.08.2013, copy of the order is filed
as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. He
6 All. Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
343
further submits that the respondent no.3 has
illegally rejected registration of the three
sale-deed mainly on five points, the first
point is in respect of power of attorney is
attested by notary and in the notary, serial
number and year is not mentioned.
Regarding point no.2, it was mentioned that
Khasra number and area and boundaries of
the property is not mentioned, only plot
nos. 26 and 27 is mentioned, the third point
raised in the impugned order is in respect
of the stamp duty paid in respect of the
Power of Attorney, which is not paid by the
executors Shri Rakesh Chandra Sharma and
Smt.Kunti Sharma and in the fourth point,
it is mentioned that Section 4 of the Power
of Attorney Act is not applied in the case of
petitioner and in the fifth point, it is
mentioned that the Power of Attorney
should be registered as per order dated
03.07.2013 of the Directorate General
Registration, which is mentioned as Bahi
No.1 and there is no evidence that the
Power of Attorney is executed by Shri
Rakesh Chandra Sharma and his wife and
the Power of Attorney is not registered as
the same is governed under Section 17 of
the Registration Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that all the points taken in the
impugned order are illegal, arbitrary and
without application of mind and the
respondent
No.3
has
exceeded
his
jurisdiction while passing the impugned
order dated 13.08.2013 and the same is
against the provisions of the Act.

6. In reply to the objection raised
regarding point no.1 in the impugned order,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the objection is illegal and baseless as
the registration number of Advocate/Notary
is given as 3132/2000 in the seal on the
stamp paper in the Power of Attorney. In
respect of point no.2, it is submitted that
the said objection is also illegal in the
Power of Attorney dated 14.03.2004, the
details of the registered sale-deed dated
14.02.1989, through which the property
was purchased by the executor of the
Power of Attorney was duly registered
before
the
Sub
Registrar,
Bareilly
mentioning the details of the property
including Khasra number, area etc. The
third point raised by respondent No.3 in the
impugned order is also illegal, baseless as
the stamp was purchased by the petitioner,
who is vendee in the aforesaid sale-deed,
hence as per the law, the stamp can be
purchased by the vendor or by the vendee.

7. In reply to the objection raised
regarding fourth point in the impugned
order by the respondent no.3 regarding
Section 4 of the Power of Attorney Act,
1882, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits
that
the
original
instrument
creating the Power of Attorney has been
submitted before respondent no.3 and the
petitioner had followed the procedure
prescribed under Section 4 of the Power of
Attorney Act, 1882 and there is no
illegality done by the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that as per the objection
raised regarding point no.5 in the impugned
order, it is submitted that as far as
registration of documents of moveable or
immovable property is concerned, it has to
be dealt in accordance with the provisions
of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act and as per
Section 17 of the Act, there exists no such
condition of registration of Power of
Attorney, therefore, the objection raised by
respondent no.3 is illegal and baseless.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further argued that the registration of the Power
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Attorney is not mandatory as per Section 17
and his case is falling under section 18 of the
Act, were in registration of the Power of
Attorney is not mandatory and submitted that
the reference of order dated 03.07.2013 of
Directorate General Registration is against the
provision of Registration Act and hence
requirement for registering of Power of
Attorney in view of order dated 03.07.2013 is
per se illegal and the same is without
jurisdiction and the grounds taken are baseless
and illegal, this order is not applicable in the
case of petitioner and respondent no.3 be
directed to forthwith registered the three sale
deed dated 29.07.2013.

10. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Shashi
Nandan further argued that in the present case
when the executor of the Power-of-attorney has
no objection nor he has made any allegation
against the petitioner regarding fraud or
misrepresentation of fact or cheating, then the
respondent no.3 must have no objection for
registration of the three sale deed presented by
the petitioner and has drawn our attention
regarding applicability of Sections 32 and 33 of
the Act. He further submitted that it is not
mandatory that the Power-of-attorney can only
be authenticated document when it is registered
document and it is also not necessary that the
actual executant of the Power-of-attorney
should present the document for registration,
once he has executed the Power-of-attorney in
favour of the petitioner, he is legally competent
to execute the sale deed and present the same
for registration, unless the allegation of
fraud is made against the petitioner.

11. In counter affidavit, learned
Standing Counsel who represents the
respondents submits that the impugned
order dated 13.08.2013 was rightly passed
by the respondent No.3 and there is no
illegality in the order impugned and was
passed as per the provision of Section 4 of
the Power of Attorney Act and Sections 17,
32 and 33 of the Act.

12. In rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel
for the petitioner denied the averments made in
the counter affidavit.

13. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record, it is not disputed
that the Power of Attorney dated 14.03.2004 is
an unregistered document on the basis of
which, the vendee has executed three sale-deeds
dated 29.07.2013 and presented for registration
before respondent no.3 in respect of the same
property mentioned in the Power of Attorney.
The ground of rejection taken in the impugned
order was carefully examined by us and we find
that point no.1 taken in the impugned order was
in respect of the Power of Attorney is notarized
and is attested by the Notary but serial number
and year are not mentioned, whereas from
perusal of the documents i.e. Power of Attorney,
which is filed as Annexure No.2 to the writ
petition, we find that the signatures on the
documents
was
duly
attested
by
the
Notary/Advocate, whose registration number is
given as 3132/2000 in the seal on the stamp
paper in the power-of-attorney, which clearly
shows the serial number and year exist in the
document which does not create any doubt. The
signature of the parties were duly attested,
therefore, the objection regarding point no.1 in
the impugned order have no force in our
opinion.

14. From perusal of the Power of
Attorney dated 14.03.2004, the detail of
registered sale-deeds dated 14.02.1989 through
which the property was purchased by the
executor of Power-of-attorney who became
owner of the plot nos.26 and 27 measuring area
324 sq. meters which was duly registered
before the Sub Registrar, Bareilly at Zild
No.2942, Page No.267, 268, Silsila No.5192,
therefore, it could not be said that the executor
6 All. Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
345
of the Power of Attorney holder has not
mentioned the correct description of the
property. The objection regarding point no.2 in
the impugned order has also no force in our
opinion.

15. From perusal of the impugned order,
the case of respondent itself in respect of point
no.3 is that the stamp was purchased by the
petitioner. In our opinion there is no force in the
objection raised by respondent no.3 in the
impugned order, the petitioner who is vendee in
the sale deed and as per the Indian Stamp Act
and Registration Act, the vendor or the vendee
can purchased the stamp and persent the
document for registration.

16. In respect of the objection raised
regarding point no.4 in the impugned order, we
have considered the arguments raised by the
parties, and from perusal of the record, it is
beyond doubt to say that the petitioner has not
submitted the original instrument creating the
Power of Attorney before respondent no.3, the
petitioner has fairly submitted in para 14 of the
writ petition that "whereas the petitioner has
submitted the original instrument creating the
power-of-attorney and the petitioner had
followed the procedure prescribed as per the
provision of Section 4 of the Power-of-attorney
Act, 1882".

17. For adjudication of this point,
Section 4 of the Power of Attorney Act,
1882 is quoted as under:-

"4.
Deposit
of
original
instruments, creating powers-of-attorney.-
- (a) An instrument creating a power-ofattorney, its execution being verified by
affidavit, statutory declaration or other
sufficient evidence, may, with the affidavit
or declaration, if any, be deposited in the
High Court [or District Court] within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction the
instrument may be.

(b) A separate file of instruments
so deposited shall be kept; and any person
may search that file, and inspect every
instrument so deposited, and a certified
copy thereof shall be delivered out to him
on request.

(c) A copy of an instrument so
deposited may be presented at the office
and may be stamped or marked as a
certified copy, and, when so stamped or
marked, shall become and be a certified
copy.

(d) A certified copy of an
instrument so deposited shall, without
further proof, be sufficient evidence of the
contents of the instrument and of the
deposit thereof in the High Court [or
District Court].

(e) The High Court may, from
time to time, make rules for the purposes of
this section, and prescribing, with the
concurrence of the State Government, the
fees to be taken under clauses (a), (b) and
(c).

(g)
This
section
applies
to
instruments creating powers-of-attorney
executed either before or after this Act
come into force."

18. Therefore, the objection regarding
point no.4 in the impugned order has also no
force in our opinion.

19. In respect of objection raised
regarding point no.5 in the impugned order, we
have no doubt that the Power of Attorney on the
basis of which the petitioner wants to execute
the three sale deeds are unregistered Power of
Attorney and in our opinion there is no bar in
the Act for execution of sale deed on the basis
of unregistered power-of-attorney. The case of
the petitioner falls under Section 18 of the Act
and not under Section 17 of the Act and there is
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no hurdle that unregistered Power of Attorney
holder cannot execute the sale-deed unless and
until there is a case of fraud established against
the executor and if no allegation of fraud is
made the registration is held to be proper in the
eye of law. Moreso, in the present case the
Power-of-attorney holder was the executant of
the document, he was also legally competent to
present the document for registration. Object of
Registration Act, 1908 is to prevent fraud and
no allegation of fraud is made against the
petitioner, therefore, he is entitled to present the
document for registration as per law.

20. For adjudication of this point,
Sections 17 and 18 of the Registration Act,
1908 are being quoted as under:-

"17.
Documents
of
which
registration
is
compulsory.--(l)
The
following documents shall be registered, if
the property to which they relate is situate
in a district in which, and if they have been
executed on or after the date on which, Act
No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration
Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act,
1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877,
or this Act came or comes into force,
namely:--

(a)
instruments
of
gift
of
immovable property;

(b)
other
non-testamentary
instruments which purport or operate to
create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish,
whether in present or in future, any right,
title
or
interest,
whether
vested
or
contingent, of the value of one hundred
rupees and upwards, to or in immovable
property;

(c) non-testamentary instruments
which acknowledge the receipt or payment
of any consideration on account of the
creation,
declaration,
assignment,
limitation or extinction of any such right,
title or interest; and

(d) leases of immovable property
from year to year, or for any term
exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly
rent;

(e) non-testamentary instruments
transferring or assigning any decree or
order of a Court or any award when such
decree or order or award purports or
operates to create, declare, assign, limit or
extinguish, whether in present or in future,
any right, title or interest, whether vested
or contingent, of the value of one hundred
rupees and upwards, to or in immovable
property:]

Provided
that
the
[State
Government] may, by order published in
the [Official Gazette], exempt from the
operation of this sub-section any lease
executed in any district, or part of a
district, the terms granted by which do not
exceed five years and the annual rents
reserved by which do not exceed fifty
rupees.

(1A) The documents containing
contracts to transfer for consideration, any
immovable property for the purpose of
section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 shall be registered if they have been
executed on or after the commencement of
the Registration and Other Related laws
(Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such
documents are not registered on or after
such commencement, then, they shall have
no effect for the purposes of the said
section 53A.]

(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c)
of sub-section (l) applies to--

(i) any composition deed; or

(ii) any instrument relating to
shares
in
a
joint
stock
Company,
notwithstanding that the assets of such
Company consist in whole or in part of
immovable property; or

(iii) any debenture issued by any
such Company and not creating, declaring,
6 All. Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
347
assigning, limiting or extinguishing any
right, title or interest, to or in immovable
property except in so far as it entitles the
holder to the security afforded by a
registered
instrument
whereby
the
Company has mortgaged, conveyed or
otherwise transferred the whole or part of
its immovable property or any interest
therein to trustees upon trust for the benefit
of the holders of such debentures; or

(iv) any endorsement upon or
transfer of any debenture issued by any
such Company; or

(v)[any document other than the
documents specified in sub-section (1A)]
not itself creating, declaring, assigning,
limiting or extinguishing any right, title or
interest of the value of one hundred rupees
and upwards to or in immovable property,
but merely creating a right to obtain
another
document
which
will,
when
executed, create, declare, assign, limit or
extinguish any such right, title or interest;
or

(vi) any decree or order of a
Court
[except
a
decree
or
order
expressed to be made on a compromise
and comprising immovable property
other than that which is the subjectmatter of the suit or proceeding]; or

(vii) any grant of immovable
property by [Government]; or

(viii)
any
instrument
of
partition made by a Revenue-Officer; or

(ix) any order granting a loan
or instrument of collateral security
granted under the Land Improvement
Act, 1871, or the Land Improvement
Loans Act, 1883; or

(x) any order granting a loan
under the Agriculturists, Loans Act,
1884, or instrument for securing the
repayment of a loan made under that Act;
or

[(xa) any order made under the
Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, (6 of
1890) vesting any property in a Treasurer
of Charitable Endowments or divesting any
such Treasurer of any property; or]

(xi)
any
endorsement
on
a
mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment
of the whole or any part of the mortgagemoney, and any other receipt for payment
of money due under a
mortgage when the receipt does not purport
to extinguish the mortgage; or

(xii) any certificate of sale
granted to the purchaser of any property
sold by public auction by a Civil or
Revenue-Officer.

(3)
Authorities
to
adopt
a
son,executed after the 1st day of january
,1872 ,and not conferred by a will ,shall
also be registered.

18.
Documents
of
which
registration
is
optional.--Any
of
the
following documents may be registered
under this Act, namely:--

(a)
instruments
(other
than
instruments of gift and wills) which purport
or operate to create, declare, assign, limit
or extinguish, whether in present or in
future, any right, title or interest, whether
vested or contingent, of a value less then
one hundred rupees, to or in immovable
property;

(b) instruments acknowledging
the receipt or payment of any consideration
on account of the creation, declaration,
assignment, limitation or extinction of any
such right, title or interest;

(c) leases of immovable property
for any term not exceeding one year, and
leases exempted under section 17;

1[(cc) instruments transferring or
assigning any decree or order of a Court or
any award when such decree or order or
award purports or operates to create,
declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in present or in future, any right, title or
interest, whether vested or contingent, of a
value less than one hundred rupees, to or in
immovable property;]

(d) instruments (other than wills)
which purport or operate to create, declare,
assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or
interest to or in movable property;

(e) wills; and

(f) all other documents not
required by section 17 to be registered."

21. In the impugned order, the
respondent No.3 has not made out any
allegation against the petitioner that the
Power of Attorney was obtained by playing
fraud or has obtained from Shri Rakesh
Chandra Sharma and Smt. Kunti Sharma by
suppression of material fact or by way of
cheating and is trying to execute the saledeed of the property in question with
malafide intention. Nor any such complaint
was ever made by Sri Rakesh Chandra
Sharma and Smt. Kunti Sharma against the
petitioner before respondent no.3. We are in
agreement with the argument raised by Shir
Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate that the
reference of order dated 03.07.2013 of
Directorate General Registration given in
the impugned order is not applicable in the
case of the petitioner, in view of the
provision contained under Section 18 of the
Act. Therefore, the objection regarding
point no.5 in the impugned order has also
no force in our opinion.

22. We have considered all the five
objections raised in the impugned order
dated 13.08.2013 for not considering the
registration of the documents presented by
the petitioner and we are not satisfied with
the finding given by the respondent no.3.
Further, it is necessary to deal with the
legal argument raised by Shri Shashi
Nandan, Senior Advocate that when the
executor of the Power-of-attorney has no
objection nor he has made any allegation
against the petitioner regarding fraud or
misrepresentation of fact or cheating, then
the respondent no.3 must have no objection
for registration of the three sale deed
presented by the petitioner and has drawn
our attention regarding applicability of
Sections 32 and 33 of the Act. He further
submitted that it is not mandatory that the
Power-of-attorney
can
only
be
authenticated
document
when
it
is
registered document and it is also not
necessary that the actual executant of the
Power-of-attorney
should
present
the
document for registration, once he has
executed the Power-of-attorney in favour of
the petitioner, he is legally competent to
execute the sale deed and present the same
for registration, unless the allegation of
fraud is made against the petitioner.

23. Section 32 deals with "Persons to
present documents for registration" and
Section 33 deals with "Power of Attorney
recognizable for purposes of Section 32",
which is in Part VI of the Registration Act,
1908, Section 32 and 33 of the Registration
Act are quoted as under :-

"Section
32.
Persons
to
present documents for registration.--
Except in the cases mentioned in
1[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
6 All. Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
349

(c) by the agent of such a person,
representative or assign, duly authorised by
power-of-attorney executed and authenticated
in manner hereinafter mentioned.

Section 32-A. Compulsory affixing
of photograph, etc.--Every person presenting
any document at the proper registration office
under section 32 shall affix his passport size
photograph and fingerprints to the document:

Provided that where such document
relates to the transfer of ownership of
immovable
property,
the
passport
size
photograph and fingerprints of each buyer
and seller of such property mentioned in the
document shall also be affixed to the
document.]

Section
33.
Power-of-attorney
recognizable for purposes of section 32.--(l)
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 45 [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;

(b) if the principal at the time
aforesaid 46 [resides in any part of India in
which this Act is not in force], a power-ofattorney executed before and authenticated by
any Magistrate;

(c) if the principal at the time
aforesaid does not reside in 45 [India], a
power-of-attorney executed before and
authenticated by a Notary Public, or any
Court, Judge, Magistrate, 47 [Indian]
Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative
48 [***] of the Central Government:
Provided that the following persons shall
not
be
required
to
attend
at
any
registration-office or Court for the purpose
of executing any such power-of-attorney as
is mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of this
section, namely:--

(i) persons who by reason of
bodily infirmity are unable without risk or
serious inconvenience so to attend;

(ii) persons who are in jail under
civil or criminal process; and

(iii) persons exempt by law from
personal
appearance
in
Court.
49
[Explanation.--In this sub-section "India"
means India, as defined in clause (28) of
section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
(10 of 1897).]

(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.

24. From plain reading of Section 32
of the Act it speaks that who are those
person to be legally entitled to present the
instrument for registration before the
proper registration office whether such
registration be compulsory or optional. As
per Section 32(c) of the Act, the agent,
representatives or assigns of the persons
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mentioned in Section 32(a), can present the
instrument for registration if they are duly
authorized
by
the
Power-of-attorney
executed and authenticated.

25. It is also relevant to mention here
that Section 32 refers to documents
presented for registration by a holder of
"Power-of-attorney" as per Section 32(c)
and it therefore, follows that the procedure
specified under Section 33 of the Act would
be attracted where a document is presented
by a person holding "Power of attorney" of
the person as mentioned in Section 32(a) of
the Act.

26. Therefore, from the above
discussion and legal position, it is carved
out that as per Section 32 of the Act, the
documents required to be registered before
the registering authority shall be presented
by the person executing it, meaning thereby
that the executor of the said document has
to be present personally for registration of
the said document before the registering
officer i.e. Sub Registrar meaning thereby
that the "Person executing" the document is
the person who is the actual executor of the
document, whose signature exist in the
document, whether it is on behalf of the
Power-of-attorney or personally presenting
before the registering authority along with
the documents for registration.

27. The document can be presented by the
Principal who executes by means of agent. The
Power-of-attorney holder can execute a
document as agent for someone else and
present the document for registration and get it
registered. Whether the Power-of-attorney is a
registered or unregistered document in both the
case he is the actual executant of the documents
and is entitled under Section 32(a) to present it
for registration and get it registered.

28. In the facts of the present case, it is not
disputed that the petitioner was given full
authority by Rakesh Chandra Sharma and his
wife Smt. Kunti Sharma under the unregistered
Power-of-attorney dated 14.03.2004 to transfer
the property and to execute the document
before the authorities concerned. It is admitted
fact that three sale deed which were presented
before the respondent no.3 for registration by
the petitioner in the name and on behalf of
Rakesh Chandra Sharma and Smt. Kunti
Sharma,
therefore,
for
the purpose
of
registration of the said three sale deed as per
Section 32(a) of the Registration Act, the
petitioner is certainly the "person executing" the
document and is the person to present the same
for registration.

29. The only purpose of registering
any document is to prevent fraud or
misrepresentation and in the present case
there is no allegation of fraud is made by
the executor of Power-of-attorney namely
Rakesh Chandra Sharma and Smt. Kunti
Sharma against the petitioner. Therefore,
the respondent no.3 is under obligation as
per Section 32 of the Registration Act was
only to satisfy himself that the documents
was executed by the person by whom it is
signed and could not see whether it is
registered
or
unregistered
Power-ofattorney if compliance of Section 4 of the
Power-of-attorney Act is made, the Sub
Registrar upon being so satisfied and upon
being presented with the documents to be
registered
had
to
proceed
with
the
registration of the said document.

30. This issue was also considered by
the Calcutta High Court in the case of
Goswami Malti Vahuji Maharaj Vs.
Purushottam Lal Poddar, AIR 1984 Cal
297 and was pleased to observe in
paragraph no. 13 of the judgment as under:-
6 All. Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
351

"13. It is, therefore, clear that the
presumption arising out of registration of a
document can be rebutted by the party
challenging
its
validity
by
adducing
positive evidence proving the invalidity of
the power-of-attorney or some other
infirmity. The facts of the present case are
that none of the co-owners had executed
the partition deed personally. On behalf of
both
the
co-sharers,
their
respective
constituted
attorneys
executed
the
document. It has been repeatedly held by
the Courts in India, including our Court,
that where a person holds a power-ofattorney authorising him to execute the
document on behalf of his principal and he
executes the document, he is treated as the
executant of the document for the purpose
of registration. He is entitled to admit
execution and to present the document for
registration under Section 32(a) of the Act
as the executant without production of any
power-of-attorney
as
required
under
Section 33 of the Act."

31. The same view was taken by the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case
of Ram Gopal Vs. L. Mohan Lal and
Others, AIR 1960 P & H 226, and was
pleased to observe in paragraph nos.11 and
12 of the judgment as under:-

"11. In my view, however, on the
facts of the present case this question does
not at all arise for consideration. The sale
deed has actually been executed by Dalip
Singh himself as mukhtar-i-am of Smt.
Surat Piari and not by Smt. Surat Piari
herself, with the result that this sale deed
was in actual fact presented to the SubRegistrar by the executant himself and by
an agent of the executant duly authorised
by a power of attorney to present the
document as contemplated by S. 32 of the
Registration Act.

12. This vital aspect of the matter
seems to have been completely lost sight of
by the Court below. Section 32 of the
Registration Act requires the document
sought to be registered, to be presented,
inter alia by "some person executing" it;
this expression, in my view, means the
person actually and in fact executing the
document and it does not refer to the
principal who may be considered to be
executing the document by means of an
agent. The basic principle underlying these
provisions of the Registration Act is to get
before
the
Sub-registrar
the
actual
executant
who
in
fact
executes
the
document in question."

32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Rajni Tandaon Vs. Dulal Ranjan
Gosh Dastidar and Another, 2009 (14)
SCC 782, was pleased to consider most
of the judgment of the High Court
regarding similar issue and was pleased
to observe that the object of registration
is designed to guard against fraud by
obtaining a contemporaneus publication
and an unimpeachable record of each
document. The instant case is one where
no allegation of fraud has been raised. In
view thereof the duty cast on the
registering officer under Section 32 of the
Act was only to satisfy himself that the
document was executed by the person by
whom it purports to have been signed.
The registrar upon being so satisfied and
upon being presented with a document to
be registered had to proceed with the
registration of the same reliance is placed
in paragraph nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
32 and 34 of the above judgment, which
are quoted as under:-

"26. It is important to bear in
mind that one of the categories of persons
who are eligible to present documents
before the registration office in terms of
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 32 of the Act is the "person
executing" the document. The expression
"person executing" used in Section 32 of
the Act, can only refer to the person who
actually signs or marks the document in
token of execution, whether for himself or
on behalf of some other person. Thus,
"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. Where a person hold a power of
attorney which authorises him to execute a
document as agent for some one else, and
he executes a 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.

27. In view of the aforesaid legal
position, we are of the considered view that
the law laid down by the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in D. Sardar Singh v. Seth
Pissumal Harbhagwandas Bankers [AIR
1958 Andhra Pradesh 107] and the
decision of Calcutta High Court in Abdus
Samad v. Majitan Bibi & Anr. [AIR 1961
Calcutta
540]
with
regard
to
the
interpretation of Section 32 and 33 of the
Act is not the correct legal position.

28. In the facts of the present
case, it is quite clear that Indra Kumar
Halani, was given the full authority by
Nandalal Tantia under the power of
attorney to transfer the suit property and to
execute the necessary document. It is an
accepted position that the said document
had been executed by Indra Kumar Halani
in the name and on the behalf of Nandalal
Tantia thereof.