Mt. Aisha Bibi v. Chhajju Mal

1. The point raised in this appeal is a point of law under Sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, but as the question appears to me to be quite free from doubt on the language of the Act, I propose to dispose of the appeal at once. The document, the presentation of which is challenged, was executed by Raghunath Das the general agent of Ram Lal and of the widow of Ganpat Rai on their behalf. The power of attorney which he held authorised him to execute documents on their behalf and he executed the document under the terms of this power of attorney. He then presented it for registration at the Registration Office and it was registered. The plea taken by the appellant in this Court and in the Courts below was that in order to enable him to present the document it was necessary that he should hold a power of attorney authenticated before the Sub-Registrar under the provisions of S. 33. A reference to S. 2 shows that a document may be presented for registration either under Cl. (a) by a person actually executing it or by some one claiming under it, or it may be presented under CI (c) by the agent of such person duly authorised by a power of attorney executed and authenticated in accordance with S. 33. The provisions of S. 33 therefore clearly apply where the person presenting a document is the general attorney of the person executing it, and not where it is presented for registration by the actual executant, even though he may have executed it as agent for some one else. The person actually executing a document is entitled to presenst it for registration under Cl. (a) of S. 32 without the necessity of any power of attorney. No doubt an agent requires a power of attorney to empower him to execute a document on behalf of his principal, but when once the document has been executed he is, so for as the Registration Office is concerned, the actual executant of the document and is entitled under S.: 2(a) to present it for registration and tr get it registered. The appellants suggest that the case is altered by the fact that the power of attorney which Raghunath Das held gave him two authorities, first an authority to execute documents on behalf of his principal, and second an authority empowering him to present documents for registration on behalf of his principal. This in my opinion does not affect the case as in this case he acted under the first of the two power. The learned Judge of the Court below has in my opinion properly appreciated and dealt with the point of law involved, and as his decision is in my opinion clearly right I dismiss the appeal under order 41 rule 11.

2. Appeal dismissed.