The Supreme Court in Amar Nath v. Gian Chand & Ors.[1] recently examined whether production of the original Power of Attorney (“POA”) is mandatory before the Registering Authority for execution of a sale deed under the Registration Act, 1908 (“Act”).

The judgment clarifies the scope of Sections 32 and 33 of the Act, and reiterates the limited role of the Registering Officer while dealing with documents presented for registration.

Background of the Dispute

The case concerned 2 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land owned by the plaintiff, Gian Chand.

• The plaintiff had executed a POA in favour of Yash Pal Singh (second defendant) to enable sale of the land to Amar Nath (first defendant).
• When Amar Nath failed to arrange funds, the agreement fell through, and the plaintiff claimed to have cancelled the POA on 2 February 1987.
• Despite this, the second defendant obtained a copy of the POA and, allegedly in collusion with the first defendant, executed a sale deed on 28 April 1987 for a reduced consideration of ₹30,000.

The plaintiff sought a declaration that the sale was null and void.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh accepted the plaintiff’s contention, holding that the POA stood cancelled and that Section 18A of the Act required production of a true copy of the POA. The High Court declared the plaintiff to be the rightful owner.

Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Appellant (Amar Nath’s counsel):

• A registered POA can only be cancelled by a registered deed of revocation, not by merely writing “cancelled” on the document (Daya Shanker v. Rajendra Kumar[2]).
• Under Section 32(a), the POA holder was competent to execute and present the sale deed (Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh[3]).

Respondent (Plaintiff’s counsel):

• Under Section 33(4), the original POA must be produced when presenting a sale deed.
• Fraud was committed by securing a copy of the POA despite its alleged cancellation, in collusion with the Sub-Registrar.

Supreme Court’s Findings

1. Scope of Section 18A

• Section 18A (inserted in Himachal Pradesh) applies to registration of the sale deed itself, not to the POA.
• The High Court erred in holding that a true copy of the POA was necessary for registering the sale deed.

2. Cancellation of POA

• No credible evidence proved that the POA was cancelled.
• A letter written by the plaintiff after the alleged cancellation (June 1987) referred to the transaction and requested early completion, undermining the cancellation claim.

3. Meaning of “Person Executing” – Section 32(a)

• The term refers to the actual signatory of the document, whether personally or through an agent.
• A POA holder who executes a document on behalf of the principal is treated as the executant for purposes of registration.
• Therefore, when such an agent presents the sale deed, there is no requirement to produce the original POA before the Registering Authority.

4. Limited Role of Registering Officer

• The Registrar’s duty is confined to verifying:
  1. The identity of the executant.
  2. The admission of execution.
• The Registrar is not required to investigate the validity of the underlying POA.
• Registration only provides proof of execution—it does not settle title disputes.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Clarifies Registration Process – Production of the original POA is not mandatory when the document is executed and presented by the POA holder.
2. Defines Registrar’s Role – The Registrar need only ensure identity and execution, not probe into title disputes or validity of authority.
3. Emphasises Transparency – The object of the Registration Act is to maintain public records of property transactions, not to adjudicate ownership or fraud claims.
4. Limits on Cancellation Claims – Mere endorsement of “cancellation” on a POA is insufficient unless properly registered.

Practical Takeaways for Buyers & Developers

• Always verify revocation: If a POA is said to be cancelled, insist on seeing a registered deed of revocation.
• Don’t rely only on copies: While registration doesn’t require the original POA, due diligence should include checking its validity and subsistence.
• Understand Registrar’s limits: Registration proves execution, not title—ownership disputes may still surface later.
• Developers dealing with large parcels: Ensure that every POA relied upon for sale is valid, registered, and not revoked to avoid litigation.
• Buyers’ checklist: Confirm that the POA is specific, recent, and grants sufficient authority for the proposed transaction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling and upheld the validity of the sale deed. The case underscores the principle that the Registering Authority’s inquiry is limited, and disputes about cancellation or validity of a POA must be adjudicated separately in civil proceedings.

For practitioners, the ruling is a reminder to:

• Ensure proper revocation of registered POAs through registered instruments.
• Recognise that registration itself does not conclude questions of title but only records the transaction.