𝗨𝗡𝗥𝗘𝗚𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗗 𝗣𝗢𝗪𝗘𝗥 𝗢𝗙 𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗡𝗘𝗬 𝗖𝗔𝗡'𝗧 𝗕𝗘 𝗨𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗦𝗘𝗟𝗟 𝗣𝗥

𝗨𝗡𝗥𝗘𝗚𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗗 𝗣𝗢𝗪𝗘𝗥 𝗢𝗙 𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗡𝗘𝗬 𝗖𝗔𝗡'𝗧 𝗕𝗘 𝗨𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗦𝗘𝗟𝗟 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗧𝗬 𝗜𝗡 𝗜𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗔, 𝗥𝗨𝗟𝗘𝗦 𝗞𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗟𝗔 𝗛𝗜𝗚𝗛 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗧 ɪꜰ ʏᴏᴜ'ʀᴇ ʟɪᴠɪɴɢ ᴀʙʀᴏᴀᴅ ᴀɴᴅ ᴩʟᴀɴɴɪɴɢ ᴛᴏ ꜱᴇʟʟ ᴩʀᴏᴩᴇʀᴛʏ ʙᴀᴄᴋ ʜᴏᴍᴇ ɪɴ ɪɴᴅɪᴀ ᴛʜʀᴏᴜɢʜ ᴀ ᴩᴏᴡᴇʀ ᴏꜰ ᴀᴛᴛᴏʀɴᴇʏ (ᴩᴏᴀ) ᴀ ʀᴇᴄᴇɴᴛ ʀᴜʟɪɴɢ ꜰʀᴏᴍ ᴛʜᴇ ᴋᴇʀᴀʟᴀ ʜɪɢʜ ᴄᴏᴜʀʏ ɪꜱ ᴡᴏʀᴛʜ ᴩᴀʏɪɴɢ ᴄʟᴏꜱᴇ ᴀᴛᴛᴇɴᴛɪᴏɴ ᴛᴏ. 𝗔 Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, comprising Justice Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K., has held that a power of attorney executed by someone living outside India, authorising another person to sell immovable property located in India, must be compulsorily registered under Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act, 1908. Simply having the PoA attested by an Indian Consulate abroad as many NRIs (Non-Resident Indians) do is not enough on its own. The judgment arose out of two separate writ appeals filed by the State of Kerala, both dealing with the same underlying question.In the first case, a man named Muhammed held a power of attorney from property owners living abroad and used it to execute a sale deed in favour of a buyer. When the sale deed was submitted to the Sub Registrar's office in Thrissur for registration, it was rejected. The Sub Registrar raised three objections, the sellers were foreign nationals and needed RBI clearance, the executants' thumb impressions required under Section 32 were missing, and most importantly the power of attorney itself had never been registered as required under Section 17(1)(g). The second case followed a similar pattern. A woman named V.R. Jameela was given power of attorney by her son-in-law, and the document was duly attested by the Indian Consulate in Dubai. But when she tried to register a sale deed executed on his behalf, the Sub Registrar in Palakkad refused, again citing the lack of registration of the PoA itself. Both petitioners had earlier approached a Single bench of the High Court, who ruled in their favour. The Single bench took the view that once a power of attorney is properly executed and authenticated by an Indian Consul or Vice-Consul as allowed under Section 33 of the Registration Act that should be sufficient to present other documents (like sale deeds) for registration under Section 32. On that basis, the Sub Registrars were directed to proceed with registering the sale deeds. However, the Single Judge's decisions didn't examine a separate, key question, whether Section 17(1)(g), which lists categories of documents that must compulsorily be registered, applied independently to these power of attorney instruments. On appeal, the State's counsel argued before the Division Bench that Sections 32 and 33 and Section 17(1)(g) serve entirely different purposes and shouldn't be conflated. Section 32 deals with who is entitled to present a document for registration, and Section 33 simply recognises certain PoAs, including consulate-attested ones as valid for that limited purpose. But Section 17(1)(g) is a separate requirement altogether, it determines whether a document needs to be registered in the first place for it to be legally effective. It reasoned that Section 33 only makes the PoA valid enough to present other documents for registration, it says nothing about whether the PoA itself needs registration. That question is governed by Section 17, which falls under a different part of the Act dealing specifically with which documents are compulsorily registerable. Since the power of attorney instruments in both cases authorised someone other than the property owner to transfer immovable property, and fell squarely within the categories listed under Section 17(1)(g), the court held that they needed to be registered regardless of consulate attestation because it was undisputed that neither PoA had been registered, the Court held that the Sub-Registrars were justified in objecting to the registration, and that the sale deeds could not be registered on the strength of those unregistered instruments.