The Criticality of Registering Power of Attorney in Property Sales

Connect with Siddharth Shukla

Advocate, Madhya Pradesh High Court

Follow Siddharth Shukla on X

Advocate, Madhya Pradesh High Court

On January 23, 2026, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh delivered a judgment in the case of Jabbar Khan vs. Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal. The court upheld a 2002 Trial Court judgment that dismissed a claim for property ejectment due to a lack of evidence regarding the legal authority to sell the house.

The Core Dispute

The appellant, Jabbar Khan claimed he purchased a house in Harda in February 1997. The property originally belonged to Sona Bai, the mother of the defendant, Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal. Khan alleged that he bought the property from Sona Bai’s other son, Mahendra Kumar, who was purportedly acting as her Power of Attorney holder.

After the purchase, Khan sought to have Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal removed from the ground floor of the house and requested “mesne profits” (compensation for unauthorized use) of ₹20 per day.

Why the Case Failed For the Appellant

The High Court identified several critical gaps in the plaintiff’s evidence that led to the dismissal of the appeal:

• Missing Power of Attorney: The most significant issue was that the plaintiff never produced the Special Power of Attorney in court. Without this document, the court could not verify if Sona Bai had actually authorized her son Mahendra to sell the house.
• Registration Requirements: The court noted that for real estate transactions involving a Power of Attorney, the document must be registered. Since the property value exceeded ₹2,00,000, a registered document was a legal necessity.
• Lack of Personal Testimony: Jabbar Khan did not testify himself; instead, he sent a representative (Sahabuddin) to give evidence. This meant the defendant never had the chance to cross-examine Khan directly about the sale.
• Absent Key Witnesses: Mahendra Kumar, the man who supposedly sold the house on his mother’s behalf, was never examined in court.

The Verdict

The Court concluded that the trial court made no error in its original 2002 decision. Because Jabbar Khan could not prove that the sale was legally authorized by the original owner, he could not claim ownership or evict the current occupant.

Final Outcome: The appeal was dismissed, and the original judgment was affirmed.

This judgment is interesting to read as it is short, and the court has not studded its judgment with unnecessary citations and long blocks of quotations from old case laws. Instead, the Court’s decision was grounded primarily on the statutory interpretation of evidence and registration requirements for immovable property.

The Court has relied on several foundational legal principles that are commonly supported by established Indian precedents and provisions:

1. Mandatory Registration of Power of Attorney

The Court emphasized that for transactions involving immovable property (especially those exceeding ₹100 or, as in this case, ₹2,00,000), a Power of Attorney (PoA) must be registered to be legally valid for executing a sale deed.

• Legal Basis: This aligns with Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandates the registration of documents that create or transfer interest in immovable property.

2. Burden of Proof for Representative Sales

The Court held that the responsibility lies entirely with the plaintiff to prove that the person who signed the sale deed (the agent) had the legal authority to do so.

• Legal Basis: Under the Indian Evidence Act, the party asserting a fact (in this case, the validity of the PoA) must produce the document or a certified copy in court. The Court noted that the “original power of attorney or its certified copy ought to have been produced” to establish this link.

3. Adverse Inference from Failure to Testify

A significant factor in the dismissal was the plaintiff’s choice to have a PoA holder testify on his behalf instead of appearing himself.

• Legal Principle: While the judgment does not name the specific case, this reasoning follows the principle established in precedents like Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank (2005) 2 SCC 217, which holds that a Power-of-Attorney holder cannot depose for the principal on matters of which only the principal has personal knowledge. Power to depose in place of principal extends only to depositions in respect of “acts” done by power-of-attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. The Court noted that the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine Jabbar Khan personally regarding the sale.

4. Termination of Agency by Death

The Court noted that Sona Bai (the owner) died on March 7, 1998, which occurred after the sale deed was allegedly executed (February 20, 1997).

• Legal Principle: This reflects the Indian Contract Act principle (Section 201) where an agency is terminated by the death of the principal, making any subsequent actions by an agent on behalf of a deceased owner legally void unless specific interest-based exceptions apply.