SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Del) 96

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
HARMOHINI SARNA AND ORS - Petitioners
Vs.
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9445/2017
Decided On : 28-01-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ayushman Pandey, Mr. Ruchira Singh and Ms Deepanshi Kumar, Advocates.

The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of a Power of Attorney should be carefully examined to ensure that it does not create any interest in the property in favor of the constituted attorney, particularly in the context of registration outside the jurisdiction of the concerned Sub-Registrar.

Headnote:

Registration Act - Power of Attorney - Section 72, Section 33 - The court discussed the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, particularly Section 33, and the interpretation of the same in relation to the registration of a General Power of Attorney. The court highlighted the importance of examining the nature of the document and the intention behind the Power of Attorney, emphasizing that it should not create any interest in the property in favor of the constituted attorney.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought to register a General Power of Attorney in favor of a close relative for a property situated outside the jurisdiction of the concerned Sub-Registrar. Their request was initially rejected, and their appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 was also dismissed.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the decision to decline the registration of the General Power of Attorney was unsustainable, emphasizing that the document did not create any interest in the property and was not for any consideration. The court directed the respondent to register the Power of Attorney within a specified period.

Issues: The key issue revolved around the registration of a General Power of Attorney for a property situated outside the jurisdiction of the concerned Sub-Registrar, and the interpretation of Section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that administrative decisions cannot override the provisions of a statute, and highlighted the importance of examining the nature of the document to ascertain whether it purports to create any interest in the property in favor of the constituted attorney.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the respondent was directed to register the Power of Attorney within a specified period, subject to the petitioners complying with all other formalities.

ORDER :

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the Sub-Registrar, Vikas Sadan, DDA whereby the request of the petitioners for registering a Power of Attorney in favour of Ms Anjali Sarna (wife of petitioner no.2 and the daughter-in-law of petitioner no.1) was rejected. The petitioners also impugn an order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the District Magistrate and Registrar, whereby the petitioners’ appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, preferred against the impugned order dated 24.01.2017, was rejected.

2. Admittedly, petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are related inasmuch as petitioner no.1 is a mother of petitioner no.2. Both the petitioners are desirous for executing a General Power of Attorney constituting Mrs Anjali Sarna (wife of petitioner no.2) as an attorney for doing certain acts in respect of the property bearing no. 15-C, Victoria Tower, 15th Floor in Raisana Residency, Sector-59, Village Ullahwas, Tehsil – Sohna, District Gurugram, Haryana (hereafter ‘the said property’).

3. By the impugned order dated 24.01.2017, the concerned Sub-Registrar declined to register the Power of Attorney on the ground that the said property was situated outside the jurisdiction of the concerned Sub-Registrar.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 pointing out that the petitioners were resident in Delhi and, therefore, were entitled to execute a Power of Attorney in Delhi appointing Mrs Anjali Sarna (who is a blood relative) as their constituted attorney. The petitioners also referred to Section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908 and contended that the a power of attorney can be registered by the principal who, at the time of executing the power of attorney, is residing in any part of India.

5. However, said appeal was also rejected by an order dated 19.07.2017. According to the appellate authority, only a Special Power of Attorney could be registered in terms of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Deputy Commissioners/Additional District Magistrates, Sub Divisional Magistrates and Sub Registrars held on 13.06.2005; and it was not permissible to register a General Power of Attorney.

6. The relevant extract of the Minutes of the said Meeting held on 13.06.2005 are set out below:-

“5. Registration of Special Power of Attorney: Deputy Commissioner (South) sought clarification as to whether Special Power of Attorney in case of blood relation and spouse can be registered for authorizing the attorney to sale the property located outside Delhi. Divisional Commissioner clarified that only Special Power of Attorney should be registered in respect of properties located outside Delhi and in no case General Power of Attorney should be registered. Necessary order/clarification in this regard will be issued.”

7. The import of the aforesaid Minutes is not to register the General Power of Attorney which, in fact, amount to transfer of title of the property. There is no bar in a person constituting an agency. There is no prohibition for registering a General Power of Attorney, which is not for any consideration and does not purport to create any interest in the property in favour of the constituted attorney.

8. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908, which reads as under:

“33. Power-of-attorney recognizable for purposes of section 32. – (1) For the purposes of section 32, the following powers-of-attorney shall alone be recognised, namely:-

(a) If the principal at the time of executing the power-of-attorney resides in any part of (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 of sub-district the principal resides;

(b) If the principal at the time aforesaid (resides in any part of India in which this Act is not in force), a power-of-attorne


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top