JUGRAJ SINGH & ANR. versus JASWANT SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 38 · Decided: 16-03-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

JUGRAJ SINGH & ANR. 
v. 
JASWANT SINGH & ORS. 
March 16, 1970 
[M. HlDAYATULLAH, C.J., A. N- RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Power of Attorney-Execution by Indian abroad-Subsequent power 
;ratifying defects-Effect of--lf relates back. 
Declaration-Suit for declaration, but no prayers either for cancel/a. 
!lion of order or injunction-Suit hh by s. 42, Specified Rilief Act-Mor-. 
gagor not party-Suit if proper/¥ framed-Costs-A ward of. 
V the son of the mortgagor executed a power of attorney in California 
(U.S.A.) authorising S to sell the property and to execute the sale deed 
and present it for registration. S executed the sale deed in favour of the 
respondents, who applied for the redemption of the mortgage under s. 9 
.of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913. The Collector ordered 
the redemption. 
The appellants-the sons of the mortgagees filed a suit 
suit under s. 12 of the Act praying for a declaration that the respondents 
were neither owners nor they had any right of redemption. as per the 
orders of the Collector which was illegal and the appellants were not 
bound by it. V was not party to this suit. 
During the pendency of the 
suit V executed a fresh power . of attorney in California in favour of S, 
stating that first one was defective and was being ratified and further that 
the act of S will be that of V, which included not only the making of 
the document but also the presentations. 
The second power of attorney 
was p:oduoed in the suit, and the suit was wsmissed. 
Appeal in the 
District Court and a second appeal filed in the High Court failed. Dismiss· 
ing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : The first power of attorney was not authenticated as required 
by s. 33 of the Indian Registration Act which in the case of an Indian 
residing abroad, requires that the document should be authenticated by 
a Notary Public. 
The document only bore the signature of a witness 
without anything to show that he was a Notary Public. 
Jn any event 
there was no authentication by the Notary Public (if he was one) in 
the manner which the law would consider adequate. The second power 
of attorney however _did show that it was executed before a proper Notary 
Public who complied with the laws of California and authenticated the 
document as r~quired by that law, and was also duly authenticated in 
accordance with our laws. 
Th~ only complaint was that the Notary Pub· 
lie did not say in his endorsement that V had been identified to his satisfac-
tion. 
But that flows from the fact that he endorsed on the document 
that it had been subscribed and sworn before him. 
There is a presump-
tion of regularity of official acts and he must have satisfied himself in 
the dischalr&e of his duties that the person who was executing it was the 
proper person. 
This made the second power of atto:ney valid and effec-
tive both under s. 85 of the Indian Evidence Act and s. 33 of the Indian 
Registration Act. [42 G--43 CJ 
The second power of attorney was a valid decum~nt and it au~ho­
rised S to execute the document -as well as to present it for registration. 
This being a document ratifying a former inconclusive act related back 
38 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
JUGRAJ v. JASWANT (Hidayatullah, C.J·) 
39 
A 
to the time when the first document was made and cured the illegality 
in the Presentation for registration which had taken place. 
B 
c 
D 
Now the Jaw is quite clear that ratification relates back to the original 
act provided there is a disclosed principal. [43 E-F] 
! 
Keighly Maxsted & Co. v. Durant; [1901] A.C. 241 and Wilson v. 
Iwnman, 1843 6 M & G 242, relied-on. 
Kattie Keran & Ors. v. I::achmi Prasad Sinha & Ors. 58 I.A. 58, held 
inapplicable. 
· 
The appellants were not entitled to the declaration prayed for. They 
neither asked for the cancellation of the order of the Collector nor for 
any injunction, two of the reliefs which they were entitled to ask in the 
case in addition to the declaration. 
Such a suit was hit by s. 42 of the 
Specific Relief Act and they were to be denied the declaration without 
these specified reliefs. 
Indeed they had only to ask for the setting aside 
of the order. 
The suit was not properly framed. 
The appellants as plaintilis in 
the C'ase joined the transferees from V but made no attempt to join V, 
the son of the original mortgagor. 
The suit could be only properly 
framed with all the parties before the Court. 
Even if V was not a 
necessacy party, he was at least a proper party. If he h

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.