The court requires landowners' participation for valid registration in property disputes involving power of attorney.

JUDGMENT

The challenge is against Ext.P10 order issued by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in an Execution Petition. The petitioner is a builder and the power of attorney holder of the owners of the land. The complaint was filed when the project was not completed and the transfer of the apartments were not made in favour of the purchasers. The complaint was filed only against the builder, without impleading the owners of the land. Pending the complaint, the parties before the Commission entered into a compromise as is evident from Ext.P4 order dated 23.05.2012. Six terms were agreed upon. According to the petitioners, they had complied with the six terms and all that remains is the registration of the documents in favour of the purchasers. It submitted that in the light of Section 32A of the Registration Act and Rule 30 of the Kerala Registration Rules, the photograph of the owners of the land, who are the sellers and their left hand thumb impression are also required for the purpose of registration. It is hence submitted that even though Ext.P2 power of attorney executed in favour of the petitioners authorises them to execute and register the sale deed, they will not be able to do it without the presence of the owners. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court inWPC.No.17197/2023 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inG.Kalawathi Bai (Died) per LRs vs G.Shashikala (Died), per LRs and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1437] to submit that the word ‘executant’ cannot include the power of attorney holder who is only signing the document as an agent of the owner. It is also submitted that in view of the above legal position, an application was filed for impleading the owners as additional respondents in the Execution Petition and the same has not been ordered so far. At the same time, by Ext.P10 order, the Commission has directed the petitioners to sort out matters with the land owners and honour the compromise decree before the next posting date, failing which, the Commission will be compelled to order the issue of warrant of arrest against the petitioners.

2. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the petitioners and the land owners is alien to the complaint that was filed before the Forum and the Forum could not have insisted on the settlement of the said dispute. It is submitted that it is beyond the authority of the Commission since the Commission was only to consider matters regarding consumer disputes and not all contractual matters which may be existing between the parties.

3. The counsel appearing for the owners of the land submits that the application for impleading has not yet been ordered and notice alone had been ordered and the owners had entered appearance before the Commission. It is submitted that the said application should be considered on merits, as they have a case that they could not be impleaded in the Execution Petition, being not parties originally in the complaint.

4. The counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submits that due to the disputes between the owners and the promoters, their rights are affected and from 2011 onwards, they are awaiting the execution of the title deed in their favour, and they have parted with hard earned money. 5. The contention of the petitioners regarding the legal position in the case of registration of the documents relating to transfer of immovable property is fully justified. It is a legal requirement that the owner’s photograph and thumb impression should be available for effecting a registration. As such, without the presence of the owners, no effective directions can be issued by the Commission. The Original Petition is hence disposed of setting aside Ext.P10 and directing the Commission to pass orders on Ext.P7 application, after hearing the parties and based on