Introduction:

In Inspector General of Registration and Another v. Muhammed and Connected Matter [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 402], the Kerala High Court clarified the legal position regarding powers of attorney executed outside India for dealing with immovable property situated in India. A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. held that a power of attorney executed by a person residing abroad authorising another person to sell immovable property in India must be compulsorily registered under Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act, 1908, before it can be acted upon for executing a sale deed.

The appeals arose from two separate writ petitions where powers of attorney were executed abroad and authenticated before Indian Consular authorities. In one case, property owners residing outside India executed a power of attorney in favour of the writ petitioner, who later presented a sale deed for registration. In another case, the petitioner’s son-in-law executed a power of attorney in Dubai, duly authenticated by the Indian Consulate, authorising her to sell his property in India. In both cases, the Sub Registrars refused to register the sale deeds because the powers of attorney themselves had not been registered in India. The Single Judge had directed registration of the sale deeds, prompting the State to challenge those decisions before the Division Bench.

Arguments of the Parties:

The respondents argued that the powers of attorney had been validly executed and authenticated before the Indian Consulate abroad in accordance with Section 33 of the Registration Act. According to them, once the statutory requirements under Section 33 were satisfied, the attorney holder became competent to present and execute documents for registration under Section 32 of the Act. They contended that no further registration of the power of attorney was necessary before the sale deeds could be registered.

The State of Kerala challenged this interpretation, submitting that Sections 32 and 33 merely prescribe the procedure for recognising powers of attorney executed abroad for presenting documents before the registering authority. These provisions, according to the State, do not override the independent mandate contained in Section 17(1)(g), which requires compulsory registration of powers of attorney authorising transfer of immovable property in specified circumstances. Since the powers of attorney had not been registered in India, the registering authorities rightly refused to act upon them for registration of the sale deeds.

Court’s Judgment:

Allowing the State’s appeals, the Kerala High Court held that the Single Judge had failed to examine the independent scope and effect of Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act. The Court observed that Sections 17, 32, and 33 operate in different fields and serve distinct legislative purposes.

The Division Bench explained that Section 17 falls under Part III of the Registration Act, which specifies documents that require compulsory registration. In contrast, Sections 32 and 33 are contained in Part VI of the Act and deal only with the procedure for presenting documents for registration. Therefore, compliance with Section 33 cannot be treated as a substitute for compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(g).

The Court clarified that where a principal resides outside India, Section 33 recognises a power of attorney executed before and authenticated by an Indian Consul or Vice-Consul for the limited purpose of enabling the attorney holder to present documents before the registering authority. However, this procedural recognition does not exempt the instrument from mandatory registration if Section 17(1)(g) applies.

The Bench emphasised that a power of attorney authorising another person to transfer or otherwise deal with immovable property in India must itself be registered unless it falls within one of the statutory exceptions provided under Section 17(1)(g). The requirement of compulsory registration remains an independent legal obligation and cannot be avoided merely because the document was executed and authenticated abroad.

Applying these principles, the Court found that it was undisputed that the powers of attorney involved in both cases had never been registered in India. Consequently, the Sub Registrars were fully justified in refusing to register the sale deeds executed on the strength of those unregistered instruments.

Holding that the registering authorities had acted strictly in accordance with law, the Division Bench set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and allowed the writ appeals filed by the State. The decision reinforces the distinction between procedural recognition of a foreign-executed power of attorney and the substantive requirement of compulsory registration under the Registration Act, ensuring greater certainty and protection in transactions involving immovable property.