The Supreme Court of India has referred to a larger bench the important legal question of whether a power-of-attorney holder who signs a sale deed on behalf of a principal qualifies as an ‘executant’ under Section 32(a) of the Registration Act, 1908.
The case arose in Civil Appeal Nos. 9497-9501 of 2025 (arising from SLP (C) Nos. 6685-6689 of 2023) between G. Kalawathi Bai (since deceased) through legal representatives and G. Shashikala (since deceased) through legal representatives and others.
Background of the Case
The dispute centers on the validity of a registered irrevocable general power of attorney dated 15 October 1990, allegedly executed by Ranveer Singh and his wife, Gyanu Bai, in favor of their tenant, G. Rajender Kumar. Acting as power-of-attorney holder, Rajender Kumar executed three sale deeds on 16 November 1990, 18 July 1991, and 16 August 1991, in favor of his wife, G. Shashikala.
However, Ranveer Singh denied having executed the general power of attorney, prompting the trial court to frame the issue of whether Rajender Kumar was validly appointed as power-of-attorney holder and whether the sale deeds executed by him were valid.
Subsequently, the High Court, through a revisionary order, directed the trial court to examine the admissibility of the general power of attorney and the sale deeds, focusing on whether they met the requirements under Sections 32, 33, 34, and 35 of the Registration Act.
Legal Context and Precedents
During arguments, the parties relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Rajni Tandon vs. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar [(2009) 14 SCC 782], which held that a power-of-attorney holder authorized to execute documents becomes the “executant” under Section 32(a) and can present the document for registration without additional authentication under Section 33.
The bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, expressed reservations about this interpretation. According to the Court:
“A power-of-attorney holder executes a document, say, a sale deed, not in his own name but in the name of his principal, and signs it on behalf of the principal by virtue of the authority conferred upon him by the power of attorney. He does not, thereby, become the ‘executant’ of the sale deed.”
The Court highlighted that the power-of-attorney holder acts as an agent and remains subject to Section 32(c) of the Act, requiring compliance with the authentication and verification requirements under Sections 33, 34, and 35.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court analyzed the statutory framework, including Rules 49 to 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, which mandate authentication even if the power of attorney is registered.
The Court 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.”
The Court cautioned that the interpretation in Rajni Tandon creates an anomalous situation where execution of a document could bypass statutory scrutiny, while mere presentation would be subjected to rigorous checks.
Conclusion and Referral to Larger Bench
Concluding that it could not subscribe to the view expressed in Rajni Tandon, the bench held that the legal question requires authoritative settlement by a larger bench. The order stated:
“With all due respect, as we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with that view, we are of the considered opinion that the said issue requires to be addressed and conclusively settled by a larger Bench.”
The Court directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for expeditious listing before an appropriate bench.
