SARAT CHANDRA BASU vs SIR BIJOY CHAND MAHATAB MAHARAJADHIRAJ BAHADUR OF BURDWAN

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

1937 Supreme(SC) 2

PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD MAUGHAM, SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON, AND SIR SHADI LAL.
SARAT CHANDRA BASU - Appellant
Versus
SIR BIJOY CHAND MAHATAB MAHARAJADHIRAJ BAHADUR OF BURDWAN - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Calcutta.
Decided On : Jan. 22. 1937.

Important Points

The court held that "resides" under the Indian Registration Act includes temporary residence for power of attorney authentication. It also affirmed that a general power of attorney allows an agent to present a joint instrument for registration, and translation disputes are resolved by examining the parties' conduct.

Subject

Civil Law - Registration Law

Act Referred

ANDHRA PRADESH RULES FRAMED UNDER REGISTRATION ACT: S.32, S.33, S.33(1)(a)

Headnote

(A) Indian Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 32 and 33 - Authentication of power of attorney - Meaning of "resides" - The expression "resides" is not limited to permanent residence and includes temporary residence for the purpose of authentication by a Registrar or sub-Registrar.

(B) Indian Registration Act, 1908 - Section 32 - Presentation of documents - Where a document is executed by multiple persons, presentation by one of the executants or their duly authorized agent is sufficient compliance with the law. A general power of attorney to register documents is sufficient to present a joint instrument unless specifically restricted.

(C) Interpretation of documents - Translation of vernacular instruments - Where there is a conflict between official and unofficial translations, the court may determine the correct meaning by examining the conduct of the parties and the logical purpose of the document.

Facts of the case:
A lease for underground coal rights was executed by four persons in favor of a lessor. The lease was signed by an attorney on behalf of one of the lessees. The lessor subsequently sued for recovery of royalties and commissions. The lessee contested the claim, arguing that the power of attorney was not properly authenticated, did not authorize the execution of the lease, and that the document was not validly presented for registration.

Findings of Court:
The power of attorney was held to be duly authenticated as the principal was temporarily residing in the district of the sub-Registrar. The attorney was found to have the authority to execute the lease, as the translation supporting this was consistent with the parties' subsequent conduct of working the mines and paying royalties. The presentation of the document for registration by an agent of one of the co-executants was held to be valid.

Issues: Whether the power of attorney was validly authenticated under Section 33 of the Indian Registration Act; whether the attorney had the authority to execute the lease agreement; and whether the presentation of a joint instrument for registration by an agent of one of the executants was legally sufficient.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that "resides" includes temporary residence for authentication purposes. It further held that a general power of attorney allows an agent to present a joint document for registration. In resolving translation disputes, the court prioritized the version consistent with the parties' conduct and the practical necessity of the contract.

Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates:
Solicitors for the appellant :T. L. Wilson & Co. Solicitor for the respondent: The Solicitor, India Office.

JUDGEMENT

Consolidated Appeals (No. 73 of 1935) from three decrees of the High Court (one of April 10, 1934, and two of July 19, 1934) affirming three decrees of the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction (April 18, 1932).

On August 30, 1916, four persons, including the appellant, Sarat Chandra Basu, executed a kabuliyat in favour of the respondent, the Maharajadhiraj Bahadur of Burdwan, by which they obtained the lease of underground coal rights in certain villages belonging to the respondent, and agreed to pay him certain royalties and commission on the coal extracted. The signature of the appellant to the kabuliyat was " Sri Sarat Chandra Basu, by the pen of Sri Natobar . Mukhopadhya " so signed pursuant to a power of attorney given by the appellant to Natobar.

The actions were brought by the respondent for money alleged to be due to him under the contract. The appellant pleaded that the kabuliyat was neither executed nor registered by him or by any person authorized by him to act on his behalf, and that he was not therefore bound by the covenants contained therein. He alleged that the power of attorney was not authenticated as required by law; and that it did not authorize Natobar to execute the kabuliyat, but only authorized him to execute another document—namely, an agreement between the four lessees defining their rights and liabilities inter se arising out of the projected lease.

The power of attorney, dated August 8, 1916, was executed by the appellant before, and authenticated by, the sub-Registrar of Hazaribagh " under s. 33, Act XVI. of 1908 M (the Indian Registration Act), which provides that " the following powers of attorney shall alone be recognised .... (a) if the principal at the time of executing the power-of-attorney resides in any part of British India .... a power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated by the Registrar or sub-Registrar within whose district or sub-district the principal resides." One of the questions in this appeal was whether the principal was " residing " in the district where the power was authenticated, as contended by the respondent.

The kabuliyat of August 30, 1916, was presented for registration on September 18, 1916, by one Fakir Chandra Sarkar, agent of Devendra Nath Mitra Mazumdar, one of the four executants of the kabuliyat, under a general power of attorney, and a further question arose in this appeal whether Fakir Chandra Sarkar had authority, under his general power of attorney, to represent his principal in connection with a document executed by the principal jointly with other persons.

The main question in the appeal was as to the meaning of the material words in the power of attorney authorizing Natobar to execute the kabuliyat, there being a difference between the official and unofficial translations. The relevant provisions of the power of attorney are set out in the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The trial judge (Buckland J.) gave judgment in favour of the respondent.

An appeal to the Appellate Court (Costello and Lort-Williams JJ.) was dismissed. The Court held that Natobars power of attorney had been properly authenticated and that that power sufficiently authorized him to execute the kabuliyat.

1936. Oct. 26, 27. Dunne K.C., L. P. E. Pugh, J. M. Pringle, S. N. Banerjee, and P. C. Basu for the appellant. The suits were brought against the appellant and three other persons as lessees under a mining lease, described as a kabuliyat, for rents and royalties arising out of the lands and the price of coal, which had been raised under the lease. The defence raised the question of the validity of the execution and of the registration of the kabuliyat. The appellant is the only defendant now before the Board. The respondent alleges that the translation of the power of attorney given by the appellant to Natobar, the document on the construction of which it is submitted that this case must be decided, is not the correct one, and he desires to put in a fresh t