Summary
The Court reversed a second-appellate judgment invalidating a sale executed by a power-of-attorney holder. The actual executant could present the deed under Section 32(a) of the Registration Act without producing the original power of attorney for that purpose. The principal’s own correspondence undermined the alleged cancellation, and notice to the purchaser was unproved. A separate minimum-price undertaking binding the agent did not invalidate the sale under the unrestricted authority.
Issues
- Whether non-production of the original power of attorney invalidated registration of the deed executed and presented by its holder.
- Whether alleged revocation or breach of a separate minimum-price undertaking justified setting aside the sale.
Provisions considered
- Section 18A (Himachal Pradesh amendment), Registration Act, 1908The required true copy concerns the document presented for registration, here the sale deed, rather than the power of attorney. (¶¶ 12-16, 32)
- Sections 32(a), 32(c), 33 and 34, Registration Act, 1908An attorney who actually executes and presents the document falls under Section 32(a), distinct from an agent merely presenting it under Section 32(c). (¶¶ 17-25, 32)
- Section 208, Indian Contract Act, 1872Termination does not take effect against the agent or third person before becoming known to that person; cancellation and purchaser knowledge were not established here. (¶¶ 52-53, 59)
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The High Court exceeded second-appellate limits by disturbing the concurrent factual finding concerning cancellation on this record. (¶¶ 48, 59)
Held
- Section 18A was intended to hasten copying of the document being registered. Neither court correctly treated it as requiring or validating production of a copy of the power of attorney. (¶¶ 12-16, 32)
- The attorney who signs the sale deed as authorised executant may present it under Section 32(a). Sections 32(c) and 33 govern the different case of an agent authorised to present a document; the objection based solely on absence of the original power failed here. Registration nevertheless does not finally adjudicate title or validate every underlying authority dispute. (¶¶ 19-28, 32)
- The principal’s admitted letter asking the attorney to arrange the sale proceeds contradicted the asserted prior cancellation. The correspondence supported the concurrent findings; cancellation and notice to the third-party purchaser were not proved. Whether a registered power must invariably be cancelled by a registered instrument was expressly left undecided. (¶ 55-61)
- The separate undertaking not to sell below ₹55,000 bound the agent, but the power of attorney itself authorised sale without a price restriction. Breach of that separate duty by selling for ₹30,000 did not nullify the sale. The appeal was allowed and the High Court judgment set aside, with parties bearing their respective costs. (¶ 62-63)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment invalidating the sale set aside. Parties to bear their respective costs.