The phrase "person executing" in Section 32(1)(c) of the Registration Act includes the principal who causes execution by an agent, and presentation for registration by an agent under an invalid power-of-attorney is invalid, rendering the registration void.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an appellate decree affirming the decree passed by a learned Munsiff.

( 2 ) THE property in dispute belonged to two persons, Majitan Bibi, defendant No. 1, who was said to have two annas share and Noor Mahammed, a resident of Mandalay, in Burma, who was said to have fourteen annas share.

( 3 ) IN the year 1940, Noor Mahammed executed a power-of-attorney (Exhibit 3) in favour of one Abdul Hamid, authorising the latter to sell and dispose of the former's properties, to sign deeds of transfer on his behalf and to present such document for registration.

( 4 ) ON the strength of the said power-of attorney Abdul Hamid executed three deeds of sale, namely, a conveyance executed in August, 1941 (Ext. 1), by which he sold lands described in lot No. 1 of the schedule to the plaint to the plaintiff, a conveyance executed in May, 1942 (Ext. 1a), by which he sold plot No. 405 out of the plots described in Lot No. II of the schedule to the plaint to the plaintiff and a conveyance executed in September, 1941, (Ext. 1b), by which he sold the remaining three plots of lot No. II of the schedule to the platat to one Aklima. Bibi.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, in the year 1945. Aklima sold her share in the plots purchased by her, as aforesaid, to one Jafar Ali. The plaintiff thereupon exercised his rights under Section 26f of the Bengal Tenancy Act and had the share that Aklima had sold to Jafar Ali, pre-empted by him.

( 6 ) HAVING thus purported to have obtained the entire alleged fourteen annas interest of Noor Mahammed in the disputed properties, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for partition against his co-sharer Majitan Bibi.

( 7 ) THE suit was contested by Majitan Bibi, defendant No. 1, who raised a four-fold defence. She disputed the power-of-attorney on a twofold ground, (a) there was no power-of-attorney executed by Noor Mahammed and (b) alternatively there was no valid authority granted by Noor Mahammed to Abdul Hamid to present the transfer deeds, signed on his behalf, for registration. The defendant No. 1 further, contended that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 142 of the Limitation Act. It was also contended that Noor Mohammed's share in the disputed properties was not fourteen annas but far less. It was lastly contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of parties inasmuch as one Shahebjan, who had an interest in the properties, had been left out.

( 8 ) ON the objection as to non-joinder of parties taken by the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff caused Shahebjan to be added as defendant No. 2 in the suit.

( 9 ) THE trial court dismissed the suit. The decree passed by the trial court was affirmed in Appeal. Hence this second appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff.

( 10 ) THE lower appellate court negatived the contention of the plaintiff that Noor Mahammed had fourteen annas share in the disputed properties. According to the court of appeal below Majitan Bibi had 1 anna 6 gandas 2 karas 2 krantis share, Shahebjan had 2 annas share and Noor Mahammed had 11 annas 13 gandas 1 kura and 1 kranti share. The lower appellate court further found that by joinder of Shahebjan, as defendant No. 2, the defect as to non-joinder of parties had been rectified, Also the lower appellate court overruled the defendant's contention that the suit was barred under Article 142 of the Indian Limitation Act.

( 11 ) BUT although of the aforesaid opinion, the lower appellate court held that the power-of-attorney (Ext. 3), on the strength of which Abdul. Hamid had presented the conveyances, Exts 1, 1a and 1b, for registration was hit by the provisions of Section 33 (1) (c) of the Indian Registration Act, not having had been executed and authenticated in the manner provided therein, and as such the presentation for registration was invalid, the documents were void, no title passed to the plaintiff under the said documents and as such he could not maintain a suit for partition. The propriety of the