Point of Law:
The person actually and in fact executing the document and it does not refer to the principal who may be considered to be executing the document by means of an agent. The basic principle underlying these provisions of the Registration Act is to get before the Sub-registrar the actual executant who in fact executes the document in question.

JUDGMENT :

Shamim Ahmed, J.

1. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anupam Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press the prayer no.1 of the writ petition and confined his relief in respect of prayer nos. 2 to 5 only.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that one Shri Rakesh Chandra Sharma and his wife Smt. Kunti Sharma had purchased plot nos.26 and 27 measuring area 324 Sq. meters in Khasra Nos. 86/3, 86/2, 83, 84/2, 87/2 situated in village Navada, District Bareilly by registered sale deed dated 14.02.1989 and thereafter, their names were recorded in the revenue records. Thereafter, the aforesaid couple on 14.03.2004 executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said property. It is also submitted that in the aforesaid power of attorney, the signatures of the persons were attested by a notary/ advocate whose registration number and all the details were mentioned in the seal on the stamp paper. Thereafter, petitioner on 29.07.2013 presented three sale deeds to be registered in the office of the Sub Registrar Ist, Bareilly (respondent no.3) in respect of the same property, which was bequeathed upon the petitioner through the Power of Attorney dated 14.03.2004 by Shri Rakesh Chandra Sharma and Smt. Kunti Sharma. It was further argued that the first sale deed was in respect of area 108.693 square meters, second sale deed was in respect of area 108.3 Sq. meters and the third sale-deed was in respect of the area 107.02 sq meters and the total area of the above sale-deed is 324 sq. meters, for which area, the petitioner has been given Power of Attorney by the aforesaid couples.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the presentation of the aforesaid sale-deed before the respondent No.3 to register them under the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the respondent No.3 in an illegal manner and exceeding his jurisdiction has rejected the registration of all the aforesaid three sale-deeds vide order dated 13.08.2013, copy of the order is filed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. He further submits that the respondent no.3 has illegally rejected registration of the three sale-deed mainly on five points, the first point is in respect of power of attorney is attested by notary and in the notary, serial number and year is not mentioned. Regarding point no.2, it was mentioned that Khasra number and area and boundaries of the property is not mentioned, only plot nos. 26 and 27 is mentioned, the third point raised in the impugned order is in respect of the stamp duty paid in respect of the Power of Attorney, which is not paid by the executors Shri Rakesh Chandra Sharma and Smt. Kunti Sharma and in the fourth point, it is mentioned that Section 4 of the Power of Attorney Act is not applied in the case of petitioner and in the fifth point, it is mentioned that the Power of Attorney should be registered as per order dated 03.07.2013 of the Directorate General Registration, which is mentioned as Bahi No.1 and there is no evidence that the Power of Attorney is executed by Shri Rakesh Chandra Sharma and his wife and the Power of Attorney is not registered as the same is governed under Section 17 of the Registration Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the points taken in the impugned order are illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind and the respondent No.3 has exceeded his jurisdiction while passing the impugned order dated 13.08.2013 and the same is against the provisions of the Act.

6. In reply to the objection raised regarding point no.1 in the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection is illegal and baseless as the registration number of Advocate/Notary is given as 3132/2000 in the seal on the stamp paper in the Power of Attorney. In res