Back
2020 Supreme(All) 649
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ABHINAVA UPADHYA, SHAMIM AHMED, JJ.
Ravindra Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 Others - Respondents
Writ - C No. 46666 of 2013
Decided On : 19-05-2020
For the Petitioner: Parul Srivastava, Anupam Kulshreshtha, Namit Srivastava, Shashi Nandan.
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the holder of an unregistered Power of Attorney is entitled to present documents for registration under Sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, and the duty of the registering officer is to ensure that the document was executed by the appropriate person.
Headnote:
Registration Act - Power of Attorney - Sections 4, 17, 18, 32, 33 - The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the respondent no.3 to pass an appropriate order for the registration of three sale-deed dated 29.07.2013 afresh in the light of the discussions made above and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajni Tandon (supra) preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought registration of three sale deeds dated 29.07.2013, which were rejected by the respondent No.3 on the grounds of an unregistered Power of Attorney. The petitioner argued that the objections raised were illegal, arbitrary, and without application of mind, and that the respondent No.3 had exceeded his jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objections raised by the respondent No.3 were without merit. It held that the petitioner, as the holder of the unregistered Power of Attorney, was entitled to present the documents for registration under Sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act. The court also emphasized that the duty of the registering officer was only to satisfy himself that the document was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been signed.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the registration of the sale deeds based on the unregistered Power of Attorney and the objections raised by the respondent No.3.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Sections 4, 17, 18, 32, and 33 of the Registration Act. It emphasized that the holder of an unregistered Power of Attorney was entitled to present the documents for registration and that the duty of the registering officer was to ensure that the document was executed by the appropriate person.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded back to the respondent no.3 for the registration of the sale deeds.
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 resp
