Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Kewal Singh And Anr vs Raman Kumar And Ors on 4 August, 2017
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
OWP No. 969/2017
MP No. 1/2017, 2/2017 & 3/2017
Date of decision: 04/08/2017
________________________________________________________
Kewal Singh and anr. V. Raman Kumar and ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge .
Appearing counsel:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amarvir Manhas, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate.
(i) Whether to be reported in Yes/No.
Press/Journal/Media
(ii) Whether to be reported in Yes/No.
Digest/Journal
_______________________________________________________ MP No. 3/2017 :
1. In view of the averments made in the application, it is allowed and the documents attached with the application are placed on record.
2. MP is disposed of accordingly.
OWP No. 969/2017:
1. The petitioners are aggrieved of the Order dated 09.06.2017 passed by the Registrar (Principal District Judge) Samba in File No. 10/appeal titled Raman Kumar v. Kewal Singh and ors, whereby the Registrar, Samba has set aside the order of Sub-Registrar (Sub-Judge), Samba dated 23 rd __________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 1 of 24 May, 2017 and has directed to register the document of Sale Deed presented before him for registration under Rules.
2. The short grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that they had appointed respondent No. 1 as their lawful attorney in respect of their land measuring 212 kanals and 16 marlas situated at village Meen Charkan Tehsil Bari Brahamana District Samba through registered Deed of Attorney dated 21st July, 2016. The petitioners state that respondent No. 1 started acting in breach of trust reposed in him by the petitioners and, therefore, they had no other option but to revoke the power and, accordingly, the power of attorney granted to respondent No. 1 was cancelled by a Deed of Cancellation of power of attorney registered before the Sub-Registrar (3 rd Additional Munsiff), Jammu on 18.10.2016. The petitioners further claim that the aforesaid decision of cancellation of power of attorney was conveyed to respondent No. 1 and he was advised not to act upon the power of attorney given to him as the same stood cancelled by the execution of deed of cancellation. It is averred that respondent No. 1, who was acting prejudicial to the interests of the petitioners, approached the Court of learned Principal __________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 2 of 24 District Judge, Samba by way of a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the cancellation of power of attorney and the learned Principal District Judge, Samba vide its ex-parte order dated 01.12.2016, stayed the operation of deed of cancellation of power of attorney dated 18.10.2016. The petitioners further submit that the aforesaid ex-parte interim order was not served upon them and in the meanwhile, respondent No. 1 started acting upon the power of attorney which had since been cancelled and started negotiations with the J&K State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Jammu for transferring the land. The respondent No. 1 thus executed Sale Deeds and presented the same for registration before respondent No. 3. The petitioners have further averred that when they came to know about the attempt of respondent No. 1 to transfer their land in favour of the J&K State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Jammu and that the Sale Deeds on their behalf have been executed and are being presented for registration before the respondent No. 3, the petitioners appeared before the respondent No. 3 and apprised him of the intervening developments. The respondent No. 3, taking cognizance of __________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 3 of 24 the intervening developments, i.e., cancellation of power of attorney and the matter being subjudice before the Principal District Judge, Samba with regard to the aforesaid cancellation, declined to register the Sale Deeds presented by the respondent No. 1 in respect of the petitioners' land on 23 rd May, 2017.
3. Aggrieved, the respondent No. 1 approached the Registrar (Principal District Judge), Samba by way of an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1977. The appeal was contested by the petitioners but ultimately, the respondent No. 2 vide order impugned, accepted the appeal of the respondent No. 1, set aside the order of respondent No. 3 dated 23rd May, 2017 and directed the registration of document of Sale Deed presented before him for registration under Rules.
4. The petitioners are aggrieved of the order of learned Registrar, Samba (supra) and have challenged the same on the ground that once the power of attorney given to the respondent No. 1 had been cancelled and the aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of respondent No. 3, there was no __________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 4 of 24 option with the respondent No. 3 but to reject the documents brought before him for registration.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No. 3 also took cognizance of the fact that deed of cancellation of power of attorney was subject matter of challenge in the civil suit where there was an ex-parte order of stay of the operation of the cancellation deed and had, therefore, come to the correct conclusion that the document presented for registration by the respondent No. 1 could not be registered till the matter with regard to the validity of cancellation of power of attorney subjudice before the learned Principal District Judge, Samba is adjudicated upon. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that in such circumstances, as rightly held by respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 1 could not be said to have the valid authority to execute the document or presented the same for registration for and on behalf of the principal, i.e., the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that the authority of 'agent' is co-extensive with the authority of the principal and the authority of the principal by executing a __________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 5 of 24 power of attorney does not get effaced and he is, therefore, competent to terminate/revoke the authority at any time. He, therefore, submits that when the principal presented himself before the respondent No. 3 and denied the authority claimed by respondent No. 1, respondent No. 3 had no option but to decline registration of the document presented by the respondent No. 1. He, therefore, submits that respondent No. 2 by upsetting the order of respondent No. 3 has committed grave illegality and has totally misconstrued the provisions of Section 35 of the Registration Act, 1977 and Rule 39 of the Rules framed thereunder.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has contended that the order impugned passed by the Registrar, Samba is perfectly legal and in consonance with Section 35 of the Rules framed thereunder. He, therefore, submits that the powers of the registering authority under the Registration Act are limited and circumscribed by the express provisions and if the execution of the document presented for registration before the registering authority is admitted, it is incumbent upon the registering authority to admit the document for registration. The registering officer, argues the learned __________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 6 of 24 counsel, has no concern with the validity of the documents presented for registration. He further submits that the power of attorney, as is apparent from the bare perusal of its terms and conditions, is an agency created by the principal with interest. The power of attorney which was granted to the respondent No. 1 was not a power of attorney simpliciter but irrevocable power of attorney not only by recital but due to its terms and conditions and the provisions of Section 202 of the Jammu and Kashmir Contract Act, 1977 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). He, therefore, argues that the power of attorney created with interest which was irrevocable in nature could not have been revoked by executing a deed of cancellation. He, however, submits that even the deed of cancellation has been stayed by the learned Principal District Judge, Samba in a separate suit filed by respondent No. 1 and the ad interim ex-parte order passed by the learned Principal District Judge has been confirmed after hearing the petitioners. He, therefore, submits that there is nothing wrong with the order impugned passed by the learned Registrar, Samba which is in consonance with law and, therefore, does not call for any interference.
__________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 7 of 24
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
9. The facts in the case are not disputed and, therefore, the only question that needs to be determined in this petition is as to the nature and extent of powers of registering officer under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration Act with regard to the registration of documents presented before it under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Registration act Svt. 1977 and whether the registering officer, i.e., Sub-Registrar (Sub-Judge) Samba rightly declined the document of sale deed presented by the respondent No. 1 being the power of attorney holder of the petitioners on the ground that his authority to execute the document and present the same for registration was subject matter of adjudication in a separate civil suit pending before the learned Principal District Judge, Samba. The collateral question as to whether Principal can withdraw the authority granted to his power of attorney for execution and registration of documents at any time even without formally executing the deed of cancellation of power of attorney, has also arisen in these proceedings. __________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 8 of 24
10. With a view to answer the aforesaid broad questions arising in these proceedings, it would be appropriate to take note of some of the salient provisions of the Contract Act. Chapter X of the J&K Contract Act, 1977 deals with the agency and appointment and authority of Agents. Section 182 of the Act defines 'agent' and the 'principal' in the following manner:-
"182. "Agent" and "principal: defined An "agent" is a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings with third persons. The person for whom such act is done, or who is so represented, is called the "principal."
Sections 183 to 200 of the Act deal with the power and authority of the 'agent', viz-a-viz, the 'principal'. Section 201 of the Act provides for revocation of authority and Section 202 of the Act is by way of restriction on the powers of the 'principal' to terminate the agency where the agent has an interest in the subject matter. Similarly, Section 203 of the act gives power to the principal to revoke the authority given to its agent at any time before the authority has been exercised so as to bind the principle save and except as is otherwise provided under Section 202. Section 204 of the Act, however, provides that when the agent pursuant to the authority given to him has partly exercised such authority, the __________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 9 of 24 principal cannot revoke such authority as far as regards such acts and obligations as arise from the acts already done in the agency. The provisions of Sections 201, 202, 203 and 204 of the Act are, therefore, relevant to be noticed and are reproduced hereunder:-
"201. Termination of Agency An agency is terminated by the principal revoking his authority; or by the agent renouncing the business of the agency; or by the business of the agency being completed; or by either the principal or agent dying or becoming of unsound mind; or by the principal being adjudicated an insolvent under the provisions of any Act, for the time being in force for the relief of insolvent debtors.
202. Termination of agency where agent has an interest in subject matter Where the agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject -matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest.
(a) A gives authority to B to sell A's land, and to pay himself, out of the proceeds, the debts due to him from A. A cannot revoke this authority, nor can it be terminated by his insanity or death.
(b) A consigns 1,000 bales of cotton to B, who has made advances to him on such cotton, and desires B to sell the cotton, and to repay himself out of the price, the amount of his own advances. A cannot revoke this authority, nor is it terminated by his insanity or death.
203. When principal may revoke agent's authority--The principal may, save as is otherwise provided by the last preceding section, revoke the authority given to his agent at any time before the authority has been exercised so as to bind the principal.
204. Revocation where authority has been partly exercised--The principal cannot revoke the authority given to his agent after the authority has been partly exercised so far as regards such acts and obligations as arise from acts already done in the agency.
__________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 10 of 24 Illustrations
(a) A authorises B to buy 1,000 bales of cotton on account of A, and to pay for it out of A's money remaining in B's hands. B buys 1,000 bales of cotton in his own name, so as to make himself personally liable for the price. A cannot revoke B's authority so far as regards payment for the cotton.
(b) A authorises B to buy 1,000 bales of cotton on account of A, and to pay for it out of A's money remaining in B's hands. B buys 1,000 bales of cotton in A's name and so as not to render himself personally liable for the price. A can revoke B'S authority to pay for the cotton."
11. As is apparent from the provisions of the Sections of the Contract Act reproduced hereinabove, a power of attorney is a delegation of authority in writing by which one person is empowered to do an act in the name of other. A person, who acts on behalf of another person (the principal) by his authority, expressed or implied, is called an 'agent' and the relation between him and his principal is called 'agency'. The authority of an agent is thus is the power to effect his principal's decision by doing acts on his behalf. Actual authority is legal relationship between the principal and the agent created by a consensual agreement to which they alone are parties. The power of attorney is generally irrevocable and terminable at the will of the principal. However, as laid down in Section 202 of the Contract Act, if the power of attorney is __________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 11 of 24 such in which the agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject matter of agency, the same cannot, in the absence of an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest. It is by virtue of these provisions of Contract Act, the power of attorney granted for consideration and creating the interest of agent therein are commonly termed as irrevocable power of attorneys. It is thus trite law that where agency is created for valuable consideration and authority is given to effectuate the security or to secure the interest of the agent, the authority cannot be revoked.
12. The question as to whether the power of attorney in question granted by the petitioners to the respondent No. 1 is one which is irrevocable in terms of Section 202 of the Contract Act or not, is an issue directly and substantially pending adjudication in the civil suit. Any expression of opinion on the document aforesaid, may prejudice either party. This Court, therefore, refrains from expressing any opinion with regard to the nature of the authority granted by the petitioners to the respondent No. 1. Reference to the provisions of the Contract Act reproduced hereinabove and brief discussion has been made only because the matter was __________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 12 of 24 argued by the learned counsel upon those lines and, therefore, it would have been unfair not to take note of the arguments of the learned counsel on the aforesaid aspects.
13. This brings me to the crucial question which needs determination in this petition which pertains to the power and jurisdiction of the registering authority under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration Act. 1977. Section 17 of the Registration Act provides which documents are compulsory registerable. Admittedly, the sale deed is a document which is compulsory registerable and so is the power of attorney which purports to authorize the agent to transfer the immovable property. It is not in dispute that the power of attorney issued by the petitioners in favour of respondent No. 1 is a registered document and its authenticity is also not in question. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No. 1 executed the sale deed in favour of J&K State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Jammu in purported exercise of the authority granted to him by the power of attorney executed in his favour by the petitioners and that the same was presented by him before the respondent No. 3 for registration in the exercise of same __________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 13 of 24 authority vested in him by virtue of registered power of attorney executed by the petitioners which, the petitioners, however, claimed to have been cancelled by execution of subsequent deed of cancellation. The deed of cancellation has also been stayed by the Civil Court, i.e., the Court of Principal District Judge, Samba in the suit filed by respondent No. 1, is the fact which has not been disputed by the petitioners.
14. In the light of the aforesaid admitted position, the arguments raised by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides need to be appreciated. It would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Registration Act, 1977 for such appreciation. Section 32 of the Act which provides the persons, who are entitled to present the document for registration, is reproduced hereunder:-
"32. Persons to present documents for registration Except in the cases mentioned in section 31 and section 89, every document to be registered under this Act, whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper registration office, -
(a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or
(b) by the representative or assign of such person, or
(c) by the agent of such person, representative or assign duly authorized by power-of-attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned."
__________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 14 of 24
15. As is apparent from the provisions of Section 32 of the Act, the document requiring registration can be presented at the registering office by the following persons:-
(i) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or in case of a copy of decree or order, claiming under the decree or order;
(ii) by the representative or assign of such person; and
(iii) by the agent of such person, representative or assign duly authorized by power of attorney executed and authenticated in the prescribed manner.
16. What type of power of attorney is recognizable for the purposes of Section 32, is laid down under Section 33 of the Act, which, for facility of reference is also reproduced hereunder:-
"33. Power-of-attorney recognizable for purposes of section 32 (1) For the purposes of section 32, the following powers -of-attorney shall alone be recognized, namely :-
(a) if the principal at the time o f executing the power-of-attorney resides in any part of the State, a power-o f-attorney executed before and authenticated by the Registrar or Sub-Registrar within whose district or sub-district the principal resides;
(b) if the principal at the time aforesaid does not resides in the State, a power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate [Indian] Consul or Vice Consul, or representative of the Govern ment of India:
Provided that the following persons shall not be required to attend at any registration-office for the purpose of executing any such power-of- attorney as is mentioned in clause (a) of this section, namely-
(i) persons who by reason of bodily infirmity are unable without risk or serious inconvenience so to attend;
(ii) persons who are in jail under civil o r criminal process; and
(iii) persons exempt by law fro m personal appearance in court.
(2) In the case of every such person the Registrar or Sub -Registrar, as the case may be, if satisfied that the power-of-attorney has been voluntarily executed by the person purporting to be the principal, may attest the same without requiring his personal attendance at the office or court aforesaid.
__________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 15 of 24 (3) To obtain evidence as to the voluntary nature of the execution, the Registrar or Sub-Registrar may either himself go to the house of the person purporting to be the principal, or to the jail in which he is confined, and examine him, or issue a commission for his examination. (4) Any power-of-attorney mentioned in this section may be proved by the production of it without further proof when it purports on the face of it to have been executed before and authenticated by the person or court hereinbefore mentioned in that behalf."
17. Section 34 of the Registration Act deals with the enquiry which the registering officer is supposed to make before he admits a document to registration. The Section provides that no document shall be admitted to registration unless the person executing such document or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid appear before the registering officer. The registering officer shall thereupon enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed and satisfy himself as to the identity of the person appearing before him and in case of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear.
18. Provisions of Section 34 which are extremely relevant for the disposal of this case also need to be reproduced:-
34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer (1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the person executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorised as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allo wed for p resentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26:
__________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 16 of 24 Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in app earing does not exceed four months, may direct that on payment of a fine not exceeding five times the amount of the proper registration fee, in addition to the fine, if any, payable under section 25, the document may be registered.
(2) Appearances under sub-section (l) may be simu ltaneous or at different times.
(3) The reg istering officer shall thereupon-
(a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed;
(b)satisfy himself as to the identity of the person appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document; and
(c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assignee or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear.
(4) Any application for a direction under the proviso to sub-section (1) may be lodged with a Sub-Registrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the Registrar to whom he is subordinate.
(5) Nothing in this section applies to copies of decrees or orders."
19. Similarly, Section 35 of the Registration Act provides procedure on admission and denial of execution and if all the persons executing the documents appear personally before the registering officer and are properly identified and if they admit the execution of the document, the document shall be admitted to registration. Sub-Section (1) (b) of Section 35 of the Act, however, deals with a case where the document is presented by a person appearing as representative, assign or agent, in such cases, if the execution of the document is admitted by such representative, assign or agent, the same shall be admitted to registration. For facility of reference, __________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 17 of 24 Sub-Section (1) (b) of Section 35 of the Act is reproduced hereunder:-
35. Procedure on admission and denial of execution respecti vely (1) (a).............. ........ ............ ..................
(b) If in the case of any person appearing by a representative, assign or agent, such representative, assign or agent admits the execution, or ...................."
20. Sub-Section 3 of Section 35, however, provides for the grounds of rejection of prayer for registration of document. It provides that if a person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution or such person appears to the registering officer to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic or if such a person by whom the document is purported to be executed is dead, and his representative or assign denies its execution and on no other basis, as is apparent from the provisions of Section 35 (3) of the Act, the registering officer can refuse to register the document. Similarly, Rule 39 of the Jammu and Kashmir Registration Rules makes it explicit that registering officers are in no way concerned with the validity of documents brought to them for registration and that it would be wrong for them to refuse to register unless they are empowered to do so by the laws and rules for the time being in force. Provisions of Rule 39 of the Rules framed under the __________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 18 of 24 Registration Act may also be noticed, which, for facility of reference is reproduced hereunder:-
"39. Registering Officers not concerned with validity of documents Registering Officers should bear in mind that they are in no way concerned with the validity of documents brought to them for registration, and that it would be wrong for them to refuse to register unless they are empowered to do so by the laws and rules for the time being in force."
21. A careful scanning through the provisions of the Registration Act and the Rules framed thereunder particularly those reproduced hereinabove, would make it abundantly clear that the powers of registering officer before whom the document is presented for registration are limited. It cannot go into the validity of the document presented for registration but has only authority to hold the limited enquiry as envisaged under Section 34 of the Act to satisfy himself as to whether the document presented is executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed and if such person is appearing as a representative, assign or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person to appear. Once that enquiry is completed, the registering officer will proceed further and ensure that the person appearing before him for registration of the document is the person who represents himself to be and if he admits the execution of the document. __________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 19 of 24 In the case of a person appearing by a representative, assign or agent, the registering officer would ensure that such representative, assign or agent admits the execution.
22. When we look to the case in the light of the aforesaid provisions of the Registration Act, it becomes abundantly clear that the document presented for registration is a sale deed executed by the respondent No. 1 in the purported exercise of authority conferred upon him by a registered power of attorney executed in his favour by the petitioners. The document, i.e., sale deed has been presented by respondent No. 1 personally as an agent of the principal and has admitted the execution thereof. That being the position, the job of the registering authority with regard to the enquiry in terms of Section 34 of the Act and ensuring that the execution is admitted by the agent, would be over.
23. In view of the above, there is no justification with the respondent No. 3 to refuse the registration of the document. It is true that during the course of process of registration, it was brought to the notice of respondent No. 3 that the authority which had been granted to the respondent No. 1 had been revoked but at the same time, it was also brought to the notice __________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 20 of 24 of the registering authority that the deed of cancellation of power of attorney by virtue of which the authority of respondent No. 1 had been withdrawn, was stayed by the civil Court in a civil suit filed by the respondent No. 1, challenging the cancellation of power of attorney which, as per respondent No. 1, was irrevocable in terms of Section 202 of the Contract Act. Viewed thus, the registering authority before whom a person who was armed with the power of attorney executed by the petitioners and in pursuant whereof he had executed the sale deed in favour of the J&K State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Jammu appeared before admitting its execution had no option but to admit the document for registration. Moreover, in terms of Section 204 of the Contract Act, the respondent No. 1 by executing the sale deed in favour of J&K State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Jammu had partly exercised his authority and, therefore, could not have been restrained from presenting the document for registration which was admittedly an act and obligation that had arisen from the execution of the sale deed.
__________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 21 of 24
24. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the case law, i.e., 2012 (1) SCC 656, Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Haryana and ors, and a Judgment of this Court rendered in the case titled Shiv Kumar and ors. V. Ajudhia Nath and ors, reported as 2010 (7) JKJ 470, in support of his submissions.
25. Both the Judgments aforesaid are not relevant in the context of facts of this case. In Suraj Lamp and Industries case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court frowned upon the transfer of immovable property by execution of power of attorney and agreement to sell and held that no transfer of immovable property can be made otherwise than by execution of appropriate sale deed in terms of Section 5 read with Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The other Judgment relied upon by the petitioners is totally irrelevant.
26. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the Judgments, i.e., (1977) 3 SCC 474, Timblo Irmaos ltd. Margo v. Jorge Anibal Matos Sequeira and anr and AIR 1990 J&K 36, Ghulam Mohd and others. V. Registrar of Registration and others, wherein also the nature of power of attorney created with __________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 22 of 24 interest in favour of the agent as also the power of registering authority in dealing with the powers of the registering authority with respect to the registration of document presented before it for registration, have been discussed.
27. In the light of the preceding analysis and the explicit provisions of the Registration Act noted above, no fault can be found with the order of learned Registrar, Samba, impugned in this petition, which otherwise is reasoned and reflects correct position of law. Respondent No. 3 was not thus correct in refusing to register the document only on the ground that the authority of the agent who presented the document for registration was under cloud and subject matter of the adjudication in a civil suit. It was incumbent for him to admit the document for registration once he was satisfied that the person appearing before him had executed the document and admitted the execution thereof, moreso, when it had been brought to his notice that the operation of deed of cancellation of power of attorney whereby the authority of respondent No. 1 had been revoked was stayed by the Civil Court and that in terms of Section 204 of the Contract Act, __________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 23 of 24 the authority had already been partly exercised by execution of the sale deed in favour of the Jammu and Kashmir State Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Jammu and presentation of document for registration was an act and obligation that had arisen from his acts already done in the agency, i.e., execution of the sale deed. Having failed to notice the express provisions as aforesaid, respondent No. 3 landed himself in an error of law by refusing to register the document.
28. Viewed thus, the order impugned passed by the respondent No. 2 cannot be found fault with and the same is, therefore, upheld. Consequently, writ petition which is found to be devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and the interim order granted is vacated.
(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge JAMMU 04/08/2017 Tilak, Secy.
__________________________________________________________________ OWP No. 969/2017 Page 24 of 24