Supreme Court Casts Doubt on View That a Power of Attorney Holder Can Present a Sale Deed for Registration as Executant Without Further Authentication

The Supreme Court has recently delivered a deeply nuanced and legally significant judgment that challenges conventional understanding about powers of attorney (PoAs) and their role in property transactions in India. The ruling places a spotlight on whether a PoA holder, simply by virtue of executing a sale deed on behalf of a principal, can present that document to a sub-registrar for execution without supplying additional authentication or verification of their authority. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of protecting the integrity of property registrations and preventing misuse of PoAs.

The backdrop of this case involves a dispute in which a PoA holder executed and presented a sale deed for registration using a copy of the PoA rather than the original document or supplementary evidence of authority. The registering authority had insisted merely on identity verification and the copy alone, allowing the document to be registered. The question before the Supreme Court was whether this process violated Sections 32, 33, and 34 of the Registration Act.

In its analysis, the Court began by acknowledging existing precedents delineating how PoAs are treated under the Registration Act. Notably, in a previous two-judge ruling, the Court had held that Sections 32(c), read with Section 33 and Section 34(2)(c), do not require production of the original PoA at the time of registration when the PoA holder is also the executant of the document. In essence, if the person executing the deed is acting under the authority of a PoA, they are treated as an "agent" in Section 32(a)—one of the categories entitled to present the deed for registration—without need for further evidence of their authority.

However—and this is the nuance that underlies the Court’s recent concerns—the Supreme Court made clear that the legal landscape is not as straightforward in all cases. Although technically the PoA holder could present the document under Section 32(a), the Court doubted whether this provision should be treated as a blanket grant of power to effect registration without additional safeguards. Just because the PoA holder executes the deed, does it necessarily follow that they can register it without producing any proof of their authority? The Court observed that allowing such a pathway may expose the entire system to risks of misuse—fraud, unauthorized sales, or disquieting opacity. In some cases, a copy of the PoA may be forged, superseded, or revoked, yet still accepted by registrars who require minimal verification. This could deeply undermine the stem of property law in a system where a registered deed holds conclusive sanctity.

The Court emphasized that registering a sale deed is no trivial exercise—it transforms a document into effective evidence of title and impacts the chain of ownership. Therefore, the process must be robust and grounded in legal certainty. This means that:

Sub-registrars must satisfy themselves, through credible identification checks, that the person appearing is indeed the same one named in the PoA.
They should ensure the PoA remains unrevoked and valid—something that may require production of the original or authenticated document.
If there is any doubt about the existence or authenticity of the PoA, the registrar must demand additional documentation or refuse the registration until clarity is obtained.

Importantly, the Court clarified that it was not overturning the earlier ruling holding that a PoA holder can present a deed for registration in the first place. Rather, it was calling attention to real-world concerns, urging registrars to exercise due diligence, and signalling that lawmakers might need to revisit the Act to bridge the procedural gaps.

The ruling underscores the difference between legal entitlement and procedural propriety. While Sections 32–34 may technically permit a PoA holder to register a deed, this does not negate the need for reasoned, secure procedures to verify their authority—steps that registrars and the law should guard closely. In calling for thoughtful reflection and reform, the Court sent a strong message that India's property registration regime must remain resistant to misuse—even in the face of technical loopholes.

In practical terms, the judgment has immediate relevance. Law firms, property buyers, sub-registrars, and PoA holders will now need to reassess registration practices. Buyers cannot assume titles obtained via PoAs are insulated against challenge—they may have to verify originals or additional evidence of the power granted. Registrars may become more rigorous, requesting notarised PoAs, original documents, or secondary affidavits. Over time, the judgment may prompt legislative updates, mandating stricter authentication steps and clarifying the registrar’s duties.

At its core, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed a fundamental principle of property law: where an instrument affects immovable property, meticulous scrutiny is essential. Registration confers incontestable property rights, and that power must never be diluted by procedural shortcuts. By casting doubt on the assumption that PoA holders can rely solely on copies, the Court has signalled a return to legal rigor and an affirmation of institutional responsibility.

This ruling stands as both a caution and a call to action: structural vigilance must accompany procedural privilege, and wherever the title to land is concerned, the law must balance accessibility with accountability. Until such clarity is embedded into the Act, sub-registrars and stakeholders must respect both the letter and the spirit of the law—lest registration, a public trust, become a vehicle of doubt and dispute.