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

2025 Supreme(Ori) 1145

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
 Himanshu Nayak – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Others - Opposite Parties
WP(C) No. 16117 of 2025
Decided On : 25-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Budhiram Das, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Ms. S. Nayak, A.S.C.

A registered power of attorney holder has the authority to register a deed for sale, and trusts can sell property without court or government approval if permitted by the trust deed.

Headnote:(A) Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - Registration Act, 1908 - OLR Act, 1960 - Petition for registration of a deed for sale refused by District Sub-Registrar on grounds related to power of attorney, trust property sale authority, and government concurrence requirements. (Paras 1, 2)

(B) Legal principles governing power of attorney - A registered power of attorney holder can execute a deed for sale in accordance with law and, if compliant, an impediment to registration cannot be sustained. (Paras 9, 11)

(C) Trust property and sale regulations - Trust properties may be sold without court or government permission if the trust deed provides sufficient authority to the trustees for such sale. (Paras 13, 16)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner sought the registration of a sale deed for properties owned by a trust. The District Sub-Registrar denied registration citing legal grounds, but the Petitioner contested this, arguing that the refusal was unfounded.

Findings of Court:
Grounds for refusal of registration were found to be unsustainable under law and lacked legal basis.

Issues: The legal sufficiency of the grounds for refusal of registration were questioned, including the validity of the power of attorney and trust authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that as long as the power of attorney is registered and fulfills legal requirements, registration cannot be refused. Trust property can be sold without external approvals if allowed by the trust deed.

Result: Writ petition allowed; refusal quashed.

Table of Content
1. writ petition filed for deed registration (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. hearing with opposing counsel occurs (Para 6)
3. analysis of first ground for refusal (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. analysis of second and third grounds for refusal (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. writ petition allowed; registration directive issued (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner against the Opposite Parties praying for directing the District Sub-Registrar, Jagatsinghpur (O.P. No.3) to register the deed for sale vide Annexure-5, which was refused to register by the O.P. No.3 assigning three grounds in Annexure-6.

2. The said three grounds/reasons assigned by the O.P. No.3 for non-registration of the deed for sale (Annexure-5) in Annexure-6 are as follows:-

(i) When, Himanshu Nayak as a registered power of attorney holder of the vendor is executing the deed for sale, but, he (power of attorney holder) has not satisfied that, his principal had not any intention to revoke such power.

(ii) As per the provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 a Trust property can be sold, only if the sale proceeds is required for the Trust and the same shall be used only for the benefit of the trust and the same can only be done when there is clear cut provision in the bye-law of the Trust and the Board of Director of the trust shall pass resolution unanimously for sell of such property. If, there is no unanimity and if there is any legal ambiguity as to the functioning of the Board of Directors without resolving such issue in Court of Law, the resolution cannot be passed for sale of such property.

(iii) When, the property of a public charitable Trust is to be sold, the concurrence of the State Government is required as per Section 57(A) and 57(B) of the OLR Act, 1960, wherein, the collector of the District is the permanent member in representing the State Government in the Board of Director of the Trust, without whose concurrence a resolution cannot be treated as valid for its operation to sell the property of the Trust.

3. The case of the Petitioner in this writ petition is that, Believers Church India is the owner of the properties covered under the deed for sale vide Annexure-5. The consolidation R.o.R. of the properties covered under the said deed for sale (Annexure- 5) stands in the name of the Believers Church India Marfat Managing Trust Bishop Dr.Samuel Mathew. The Believers Church India is a private trust and the same has been registered as per The Trust Act vide Annexure-3.

As per the resolution dated 18.03.2022 (Annexure-4), in the meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Believers Church India trust, it was decided for selling of the properties of the trust covered under the deed for sale (Annexure-5) through its Power of Attorney Holder i.e. the Petitioner (Himanshu Nayak).

4. On the basis of such resolution vide Annexure-4, a special Power of Attorney was executed and registered by the Believers Church India through its Managing trust Bishop Dr.Samuel Mathew in favour of the Petitioner vide registered Power of Attorney No.107 dated 19.03.2022 (Annexure-1) authorizing the Petitioner (Himanshu Nayak) to sell the properties of the Believers Church India in Mouja Nuagaon on behalf of the Believers Church India.

Thereafter, the Believers Church India executed the deed for sale of the properties vide Plots Nos.1279 and 1280 under Khata Nos.58/4 and 528/64 in Mouja Nuagaon through its registered Power of Attorney Holder i.e. the Petitioner Himanshu Nayak in favour of the O.P. Nos.4 to 9 and presented that deed for sale (Annexure-5) before the District Sub-Registrar, Jagatsinghpur (O.P. No.3) for its registration, but, the O.P. No.3 refused to register that deed for sale assigning three grounds as indicated above in Annexure-6 and communicated the same to the Petitioner through letter No.3007 dated 15.07.2024.

5. On being

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top