A revocable Power of Attorney is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act, 1908. However, if such a document is deficient in stamp duty, it can be admitted in evidence upon payment of the deficient stamp duty and penalty.

JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - This petition is directed against the order dated 27/1/2020 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (Metro) ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order XIII Rule 4 CPC read with Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act, 1908 ('the Act, 1908') has been rejected.

2. The respondent filed a petition for eviction through his Power of Attorney holder - son before the Rent Tribunal. During the pendency of the proceedings, the present application under Order XIII Rule 4 CPC read with Section 17(1)(g) of the Act, 1908 was filed inter alia with the averments that the document Ex.1, Power of Attorney, based on which the proceedings were instituted is neither registered nor bears requisite stamp duty and, as the same is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be marked as exhibit, the same be placed in Part D.

3. The application was contested by the respondent claiming that there was no necessity to get the Power of Attorney registered and that the same is sufficiently stamped.

4. The Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that looking at the document indicates that the same contains power to withdraw or revoke the Power of Attorney and, therefore, the same was not compulsorily registrable, however, apparently the aspect of deficient stamp duty was not dealt with by the Tribunal and the application was rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that the document in question was an irrevocable Power of Attorney and, therefore, the same was compulsorily registrable under the provisions of the Act, 1908 and, therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in rejecting the application.

6. Submissions were also made that as the document was executed at Ahmedabad, the stamp duty paid was insufficient and the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned. It was submitted with reference to Clause 19 of the Power of Attorney that right has been reserved to cancel, withdraw or revoke the powers conferred upon the attorney and, therefore, it cannot be said that the same was irrevocable and, therefore, the provisions of Section 17(1)(g) of the Act, 1908 has no application.

8. Submissions were also made that the stamp duty paid is sufficient and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

10. A bare look at the Power of Attorney (Annex.2) reveals that the owner of the property has given a general Power of Attorney to his son to manage, control, look after and supervise the property, approve the deed of conveyance, execute the same on his behalf and besides other activities, file, defend, compromise, compound and withdraw any suit in any court of law in any matter concerning the said property. Clause 19 of the Power of Attorney reads as under:

"19. I reserve my right to appoint any other person(s) as my attorney authorizing him to do all or an of the above act, or any other acts, which have been specifically mentioned herein above in respect of my properties or any mater incidental thereto and to cancel, withdraw or revoke the powers conferred upon the said attorney."

11. The provisions of Section 17(1)(g) of the Act, 1908, which are applicable to the State of Rajasthan provide that 'irrevocable power of attorney relating to transfer of immovable property in any way' is compulsorily registrable. For the Power of Attorney to be compulsorily registrable, it must be irrevocable.

12. A bare look at clause 19 quoted hereinbefore reveals that the Power of Attorney in question is revocable and, therefore, the provisions of Section 17(1)(g) of the Act, 1908 have no application to the present document and, therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner has no substance.

13. So far as the plea raised pertaining to the document in question being insufficie