Summary of the Judgment: G. Kalawathi Bai (Died) per LRs. vs. G. Shashikala (Died) per LRs. & Ors

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: G. Kalawathi Bai (Died) per LRs. vs. G. Shashikala (Died) per LRs. & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 851
Judges: Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
Date: July 15, 20252. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment primarily interprets:

• Registration Act, 1908:
  Section 32: Persons authorized to present documents for registration (executant, representative, or agent).
  Section 33: Authentication requirements for power of attorney (PoA) used to present documents.
  Section 34: Registrar’s duty to verify the identity and authority of the person executing the document.
  Section 35: Procedure for admission/denial of execution before registration.

• Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules:
  Rule 53: Mandates authentication of PoA even if registered.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Nature of Dispute: Validity of three sale deeds (1990–1991) executed by a PoA holder (G. Rajender Kumar) in favor of his wife (G. Shashikala), allegedly on behalf of the original owners (Ranveer Singh & Gyanu Bai).

• Core Issue: Whether a PoA holder executing and presenting a sale deed is the "executant" under Section 32(a) (bypassing authentication) or an "agent" under Section 32(c) (requiring authentication).

• Lower Courts’ Findings:
  Trial Court & High Court: Relied on Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar (2009) to hold the PoA holder as the "executant" under Section 32(a), validating the sales.

• Supreme Court’s Action: Disagreed with Rajni Tandon, referred the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

A. Factual Background

1. Alleged PoA (1990): Ranveer Singh & Gyanu Bai purportedly executed an Irrevocable General PoA in favor of their tenant, G. Rajender Kumar, authorizing him to:
   Execute sale deeds.
   Present documents for registration.

2. Subsequent Sales (1990–1991): Rajender Kumar executed three sale deeds in favor of his wife, Shashikala.

3. Dispute: Ranveer Singh denied executing the PoA. The validity of the sales hinged on whether Rajender Kumar was lawfully authorized.

B. Key Legal Issues

(i) Is a PoA Holder the "Executant" under Section 32(a)?

• High Court’s View (Following Rajni Tandon):
  A PoA holder executing a sale deed becomes the "executant" under Section 32(a) and need not comply with Section 33 (authentication).

• Supreme Court’s Disagreement:
  A PoA holder acts as an agent, not the principal. The sale deed is executed in the principal’s name, making the holder an agent under Section 32(c).
  Example: If Rajender Kumar signs as "for Ranveer Singh," he remains an agent, not the executant.

(ii) Registrar’s Duty under Sections 34 & 35

• The Registrar must:
  Verify the identity of the person presenting the document.
  Confirm the authority of the PoA holder (via authentication under Section 33).

• Flaw in Rajni Tandon: It allowed PoA holders to bypass authentication, risking fraudulent transfers.

(iii) Incongruity Highlighted by the Court

• Under Rajni Tandon:
  A PoA holder executing a sale deed (major act) avoids scrutiny.
  A PoA holder merely presenting a deed (minor act) must comply with Sections 32(c), 33, 34, 35.

• Court’s View: This creates an illogical loophole.

C. Supreme Court’s Conclusion

1. Referral to Larger Bench: The Court disagreed with Rajni Tandon and directed the matter to a larger bench to settle:
   Whether a PoA holder is an "executant" (Section 32(a)) or an "agent" (Section 32(c)).

2. Implications:
   If the larger bench overturns Rajni Tandon, PoA holders must strictly comply with authentication rules (Section 33).
   This would prevent fraudulent property transfers via unverified PoAs.

5. Key Takeaways

1. PoA Holder’s Role: The Supreme Court leans toward treating PoA holders as agents (Section 32(c)), requiring authentication.

2. Registrar’s Vigilance: Registrars must verify PoAs under Sections 33–35 to prevent fraud.

3. Pending Clarity: The larger bench’s decision will determine the validity of property transfers via PoAs.

Note: This judgment underscores the need for strict compliance with registration laws to safeguard property rights. For now, Rajni Tandon remains applicable but is under scrutiny.

Simplified Explanation:

• The case questions whether a person using a Power of Attorney to sell property is the actual seller (no extra checks needed) or just a representative (must prove authority). The Supreme Court thinks the latter is correct and wants a bigger bench to decide. This could make property deals safer by reducing fraud.