COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed as against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 13.07.2016 made in I.A.Nos.16187 and 16188 of 2015 in O.S.No.3464 of 2010 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, thereby dismissed the petitions filed to eschew the proof affidavit filed by the Power Agent as Defendant Witness-1 and to reject the document of Power of Attorney which was marked as Ex.B1.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit filed by them for partition. Pending suit, the first respondent herein filed a petition to condone the delay in receiving the documents of Power of Attorney which was executed by his son in his favour to depose before the Trial Court. The same was allowed and thereafter the first respondent herein marked the Power of Attorney as Ex.B1 and filed the proof affidavit of D.W.1. At that juncture, the petitioners filed applications to reject Ex.B1 and eschew the proof affidavit filed by D.W.1, on the ground that Ex.B1 was not adjudicated in India, since it was executed in United States of America. When D.W.1 has no power to depose on behalf of the first defendant, his proof affidavit also has to be eschewed. However, the Court below dismissed both the applications for the reason that the Power of Attorney was prepared at Chennai and sent to USA for execution. The Notary Public endorsed the same and sent to India. With regard to the validity and genuineness of the documents, it has to be decided only at the time of finality of the case, since the provisions under Section 33 of the Registration Act states that every Power is to get adjudicated with local Sub Registrar Office, even the registration of the Power of Attorney itself is an optional one. Hence, non adjudication of Power of Attorney will not invalidate the deed of Power of Attorney. It was duly executed before two witnesses.

3. A perusal of Ex.B1 revealed that it was duly signed at Chennai along with two witnesses, but, their addresses were not mentioned in Ex.B1. Therefore, the place of execution of the Power of Attorney itself is in question. The said Power of Attorney is also not properly attested by two witnesses. It was attested by a Notary Public of United States of America. Further, it was prepared in the month of March 2008 and it was notarized by the Notary Public of United States of America. Admittedly, it was not adjudicated in India. When the Power of Attorney was executed in abroad, it should be adjudicated in India.

4. The learned counsel for the first respondent relied upon the Judgment of this Court reported in CDJ 1999 MHC 1021 in the case of S.K.Subramaniam Vs. N.S.Ziyauddin Ahmed, wherein it was held that it is sufficient to prove a document which was executed by the father in favour of his son by looking at the signatures. If the signature found in the document is admitted, then the Court can proceed with the document as genuine and it does not require any attestation. Therefore, this Court dealt with regard to the attestation of the document.

5. He also relied upon the Judgment reported in CDJ 2015 Raj HC 009 in the case of Jaikumar Vs. Hanuman and Others, wherein it was held that the Power of Attorney is not compulsorily registrable one when the Power of Attorney is an irrevocable one. Whereas, in the case on hand, it is with regard to the adjudication of the Power of Attorney which was endorsed in United States of America by the Notary Public of United States of America.

6. It is also revealed that it was executed by the first defendant in favour of his father, to purchase or sell movable and immovable properties and it is a General Power of Attorney. It is only to represent on his behalf in the partition suit. Therefore, it should be adjudicated in India to validate the same. That apart, it was prepared in India in the month of March 2008 and endorsed by the Notary Public of United States of America, on 20.11.2008. Further, two witnesses attested the Power of Attorney and no w