RAJNI TANDON versus DULAL RANJAN GHOSH DASTIDAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 686 · Decided: 29-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 11 S.C.R. 686 
A 
RAJNI TANDON 
~ 
v. 
DULAL RANJAN GHOSH DASTIDAR AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4671 of 2004) 
B 
JULY 29, 2009 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. B.S. 
CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Registration Act, 1908: ss.32 and 33 - Power of attorney 
t 
c (POA) holder executing a document on behalf of principal -
Entitlement of POA holder to present the document for 
registration - Held: POA holder becomes actual executant 
and is entitled to present it for registration and get it registered 
in terms of s.32(a) - He does not faff under s.32(c) and hence 
D s.33 would not apply- Interpretation of statutes. 
Interpretation of statutes: Use of the word 'or' is used to 
~ -
signify the disjunctive nature of a provision. 
The questions which arose for consideration in the 
E present appeal were whether a person who executes a 
document under the terms of power of attorney becomes 
an actual executant of the document and entitled under 
Section 32(a) of the Registration Act to present it for 
registration and get it registered and whether a power of 
F 
attorney to execute a document is recognizable only if it 
~ 
is registered and authenticated under Section 33(1){c) of 
the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. Section 32 of the Registration Act deals 
with persons who are eligible to present documents for 
registration before the proper registration office. Section 
~ -, 
32 specifies three categories of persons who can present 
jocuments for registration. The use of the word "or" 
H 
686 
RAJNI TANDON v. DULAL RANJAN GHOSH 
687 
DASTIOAR 
.... ' "' 
between the clauses· of Section 32 demonstrates that the 
A 
legislature intended the said clauses to be read 
disjunctively and not conjunctively. It is settl~d law that 
the use of the word 'or' is used to signify the disjunctive 
nature of a provision. [Para 20] [699-G-H; 700-A] 
State of Orissa v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 9 
sec 591, relied on. 
B 
1.2. Clause (a) of Section 32 specifies that a 
docum~nt can be presented for registration (i) by the 
person executing the document; (ii) any person claiming 
C 
under the document presented for registration and (iii) in 
the case the said document is a copy of a decree or order, 
any person claiming under the decree or order. Clause 
(b) and (c) deal with cases where the document is 
presented not by any person mentioned in (i), (ii) and (iii) 
D 
of sub clause (a) but by their agent, representative or 
assign. This is so because the use of the words "such 
person" in clause (b) and (c) can be understood to mean 
only persons as referred to in (i), (ii) and (iii) above. In so 
far as clause (c) of Section 32 is concerned, the agents, 
E 
representative or assigns of the persons referred to in (i), 
(ii) and (iii) can present the said document for registration 
. only if they are duly authorized by power-of-attorney and 
'executed and authenticated. The words "executed and 
authenticated in Section 32 (c) would mean the 
F 
procedure specified in Section 33. This is .clear from the 
opening words of Section 33 which reads "for the 
purposes of Section 32, the following power-of-attorney 
shall alone be recognised". Section 32 refers to 
documents presented for registration by a holder of G 
"power-of-attorney" in Clause (c) and it therefore follows 
that the procedure specified under Section 33 would be 
attracted where a document is presented by a person 
holding a "powers-of-attorney" of the persons mentioned 
H 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 
A in Clause (a) of Section 32. [Paras 21 and 22) [700-A-H; 
701-A] 
Motilal v. Ganga Bai AIR 1915 Nagpur 18; Gopeswar 
Pyne v. Hem Chandra Bose & Ors. AIR.1920 Calcutta 316; 
Mt. Aisha Bibi v. Chhajju Mal & Ors. AIR 1924 Allahabad 
8 148; Sultan Ahmad Khan v. Sirajul Haque and Ors AIR 1938 
ALL 170; Ram Gopal v. L. Mohan Lal & Ors. AIR 1960 
Punjab 226; Sarni Ma/ti Vahuji Maharaj v. Purushottam Lal 
Poddar AIR 1984 Calcutta 297; D. Sardar Singh v. Seth 
Pissumal Harbhagwandas Bankers AIR 1958 Andhra 
C Pradesh 107; Abdus Samad vs. Majitan Bibi & Anr. AIR 
1961 Calcutta 540; Rati/al Nathubhai and Anr. v. Rasikla/ 
Magan/al and Ors. AIR 1950 Bombay 326, referred to. 
1.3. Section 32 of the Act requires the documents 
D sought to be registered, to be presented by the person 
executing it. Tt:ie said expression requires presence of 
the actual person executing the document. The basic 
principle underlying this provision of the Act is to get 
before the S

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