Summary
An asset reconstruction company challenged registration of a sale by an attorney whose cited power did not authorize sale and prohibited encumbrance without written consent. The Court restored the Single Judge’s cancellation of registration. It distinguished review of a registering officer’s failure to perform statutory duties from civil adjudication of execution and title, and emphasized the applicable Tamil Nadu provisions and rules.
Issues
- Whether writ jurisdiction was available to review the registering authority’s statutory failure despite pending civil proceedings.
- Whether an agent’s presentation of his own executed deed relieved the registering officer of checking the authority relied on.
- How authentication and registration of a power of attorney differ.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaHeld judicial review available for a gross failure of registration duties while reserving execution and title disputes for civil adjudication. (¶¶ 38-43, 48-58)
- Sections 32, 33 and 34, as applicable in Tamil Nadu, Registration Act, 1908Distinguished entitlement to present, authentication and the officer’s duty to satisfy himself about the right of a representative, assign or agent to appear. (¶¶ 14-19, 25-29, 45-46, 54, 58)
- Rules 46, 48, 49 and 52, Tamil Nadu Registration RulesApplied the distinction between authentication and registration, the handling of powers of attorney and the related verification and record-keeping obligations. (¶¶ 20-24, 29, 37, 46, 58)
- Section 2(10), Registration Act, 1908Distinguished the statutory meaning of representative from agent in the registration provisions. (¶ 27-28)
- Section 182, Indian Contract Act, 1872Used the definition of agent in construing the registration requirements. (¶ 27-28)
Held
- Authentication of a power of attorney and its registration are distinct. Sections 32(c) and 33 address authentication, while registration requirements depend on applicable State amendments. The Court noted Tamil Nadu’s 2012 amendments for context and expressly did not apply them to the earlier transaction. (¶¶ 17-23, 28, 30-33)
- The registered power relied on in the sale deed did not authorize sale and expressly restricted encumbrance. The later-produced supplemental power was not the document produced or relied on for registration. The officer’s failure to verify the cited authority breached his duties under the applicable statutory scheme and rules. (¶¶ 34-37, 46, 54)
- Rajni Tandon did not establish that a registering officer can ignore the absence of sale authority merely because the attorney executes and presents the deed. The scope of registration duties must take account of State amendments and rules; the Court declined to treat observations in Amar Nath as universally applicable. This did not confer general power on registering officers to determine title. (¶¶ 11, 13, 44-48, 58)
- A civil challenge to execution or the executant’s title differs from review of the authority’s act of registration. A writ court may cancel the latter for gross statutory noncompliance without declaring the document’s execution void or deciding title. Discretion to decline review for lesser procedural breaches is different from absence of jurisdiction. (¶ 49-55)
- The earlier direction to pursue civil remedies arose from section 145 proceedings and did not foreclose this distinct challenge to the registrar’s statutory omission. Neither the pending suits nor that earlier direction justified reversing the Single Judge on these facts. (¶¶ 54, 56-58)
Result
Appeals allowed. The Division Bench judgment set aside and the Single Judge’s order restored, cancelling the challenged act of registration. No costs. The judgment distinguishes that relief from a declaration invalidating execution or finally deciding title.