Power‑of‑Attorney Holder Does Not Become 'Executant'; Matter Referred to Larger Bench for Decision on Registration Tests

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan heard appeals challenging the validity of a registered Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 15.10.1990 alleged to have been executed by Ranveer Singh and his wife in favour of their tenant G. Rajender Kumar, and the validity of three registered sale deeds dated 16.11.1990, 18.07.1991 and 16.08.1991 executed by the power‑of‑attorney holder in favour of his wife G. Shashikala. The appeals raised the question whether a power‑of‑attorney holder who signed and presented sale deeds could be treated as the "executant" under Section 32(a) of the Registration Act, 1908, thereby avoiding the authentication and enquiry requirements of Sections 32(c), 33, 34 and 35.

The Court summarised that a power‑of‑attorney holder did not, by merely signing a document on behalf of the principal, become the executant in his own right and escape the statutory safeguards applicable to agents presenting documents for registration. The Bench disagreed with the view in Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar (2009) 14 SCC 782 and held that the question required authoritative resolution by a larger Bench. The Court noted that "we are unable to subscribe to this view" and emphasised the duty of the registering officer under Section 34(3) to "enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed" and to "satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him". The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "By merely signing a document on behalf of the principal, a power‑of‑attorney holder does not lose his status as an agent of that principal and become the ‘executant’ in his own right. Such an agent would, therefore, continue to be covered by Section 32(c) of the Act as he would then present the signed document for registration only as an agent and must necessarily satisfy the requirements of Sections 32(c), 33. 34 and 35 of the Act and the rules framed in that context." The Bench granted leave and directed the Registry to secure orders for expeditious listing before an appropriate larger Bench.

Background: The dispute arose from a civil suit in which Ranveer Singh denied execution of the alleged Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 15.10.1990. The Trial Court framed issues including whether Ranveer Singh had appointed G. Rajender as his general power‑of‑attorney and whether sale deeds executed by the holder were valid. Following a revisionary order of the High Court, the Trial Court was asked to examine the admissibility of the power of attorney and whether it had been authenticated by the Registrar as required under Sections 32 to 35 of the Registration Act and relevant rules (including Rule 53). The High Court had placed reliance on Rajni Tandon, which held that where an agent executed a deed under a power of attorney and signed, appeared and presented the deed, he was the "actual executant" under Section 32(a) and authentication of the power was not necessary. This Bench analysed the statutory scheme in Part VI (Sections 32–39) and the Andhra Pradesh Rules (Rules 49–55), and concluded that the Rajni Tandon view produced an anomalous result. The Court explained that a sale deed executed in the name of the principal remained the principal's act, and a power‑of‑attorney holder presenting such deed remained an agent who must satisfy the registrar as to his authority and the voluntary execution of the power‑of‑attorney. The Bench therefore declined to follow Rajni Tandon, held that the issue required consideration by a larger Bench, granted leave, and directed expeditious listing before an appropriate Bench. No substantive adjudication on the validity of the power of attorney or the sale deeds was finally recorded in this order.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 9497-9501 OF 2025 (@ S.L.P.(C) Nos. 6685-6689 of 2023) Case Title: G. Kalawathi Bai (Died), per LRs. ….. Appellants Versus G. Shashikala (Died), per LRs., and others ….. Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in order For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in order