INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATIONS Vs. MUHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both these writ appeals preferred by the State involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and are disposed by this common judgment.

(2.) The issue that arises for consideration in both the appeals is whether, when a power of attorney instrument is executed by persons situated abroad in favour of a person situated in India for the purpose of executing other instruments relating to the transfer of immovable property situated in India, the said power of attorney instrument needs to be compulsorily registered in terms of Sec. 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), or whether mere compliance with the requirements of Ss. 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, 1908 would suffice?

(3.) In W.P.(C) No.7863 of 2021, from which Writ Appeal No.203 of 2022 arises, the writ petitioner, who was the power of attorney holder of the owners of the property residing abroad, had entered into a sale transaction by executing Ext.P2 sale deed in favour of a third person. The sale transaction was in respect of properties situated in India, and the execution of the sale deed was under the strength of the power of attorney held by the writ petitioner. When the sale deed was presented for registration, the Sub Registrar, through Ext.P5 communication, objected to the registration of the instrument on the grounds (i) that the vendors under the sale deed were all foreigners and, therefore, prior permission from the Reserve Bank of India was required; (ii) that the thumb impressions of the executants, as required under Sec. 32 of the Act, were not affixed on the instrument; and (iii) that, in view of Sec. 17(1)(g) of the Act, the power of attorney instrument authorising the writ petitioner to act on behalf of the principals had to be compulsorily registered, which it was not. It was the said communication issued by the Sub Registrar that was impugned in the writ petition.