Once a document has crossed the thresholds of compulsory registration and timely presentation, one practical question decides whether it ever reaches the register at all: who is allowed to walk up to the Sub-Registrar's counter and present it? Sections 32 to 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 supply the answer. Section 32 lists the persons competent to present; Section 32A adds the photograph-and-fingerprint requirement; Section 33 prescribes the only powers-of-attorney the registering officer may recognise; and Sections 34 and 35 govern the enquiry the officer must conduct before admitting the document to registration. A defect at this stage — presentation by a stranger, or by an agent under an unauthenticated power — is not a curable irregularity but a jurisdictional flaw that can render the registration a nullity. This article works through the statutory scheme and the leading authorities, including the contested question, now pending before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court, of whether a power-of-attorney holder who signs a sale deed thereby becomes its “executant”.
Where Sections 32–35 Fit in the Registration Scheme
The Registration Act is built as a sequence. Sections 17 and 18 settle which documents must be registered and which may optionally be registered. Sections 23 to 26 fix the time within which a document must be presented, and Sections 28 to 31 fix the place of registration. Sections 32 to 35 occupy the next link in that chain: assuming the document is registrable, has been brought within time and to the right office, who may present it and what must the registering officer do before he admits it?
This grouping matters because the four sections operate together. Section 32 identifies the competent presenter; Section 33 qualifies the position of an agent by restricting the powers-of-attorney that count; and Sections 34 and 35 set out the enquiry into execution, identity and competence that the officer must complete before endorsing the document. Read in isolation any one of them is incomplete; read together they form the gateway between a privately executed instrument and a publicly registered one. For the wider architecture of registering officers and their hierarchy, see the note on the establishment of the Inspector-General, Registrars and Sub-Registrars, and for orientation, the introduction to the Registration Act on the Registration Act hub.
Section 32: The Three Classes of Persons Entitled to Present
Section 32, subject to the special provisions for wills and authorities to adopt in Sections 31, 88 and 89, declares that every document to be registered — whether such registration is compulsory or optional — shall be presented at the proper registration office by one of three categories of person. First, by some person executing or claiming under the document, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order. Secondly, by the representative or assign of such a person. Thirdly, by the agent of such a person, representative or assign, duly authorised by a power-of-attorney executed and authenticated in the manner mentioned in Section 33.
Three points of construction deserve emphasis. The first class includes not only the person who signed the deed but also a person claiming under it — for instance the purchaser under a sale deed, who claims the property conveyed. The second class, “representative or assign”, brings in heirs, executors and transferees. The third class, the agent, is the most heavily litigated, because his right to present is conditional on holding a power-of-attorney of the precise kind that Section 33 recognises. Presentation by a person falling within none of these classes is not a mere irregularity: it strikes at the registering officer's jurisdiction to register at all.
Section 32A: Compulsory Photographs and Fingerprints
Inserted by the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001, Section 32A is an anti-fraud and identity-verification measure that now operates alongside Section 32. It requires that every person presenting a document for registration under Section 32 shall affix his passport-size photograph and fingerprints to the document. Where the document relates to the transfer of ownership of immovable property, the passport-size photographs and fingerprints of each buyer and seller of such property mentioned in the document must also be affixed.
The object is to create a reliable contemporaneous record of who actually appeared and dealt with the property, making it far harder to later disown a transaction or to impersonate a party. Section 52(1)(a), correspondingly, requires the registering officer to endorse on the document the photographs and fingerprints affixed under Section 32A at the time of presentation. The provision is procedural but mandatory in spirit: it reinforces, rather than replaces, the Section 32 enquiry into who is competent to present.
Section 33: The Only Powers-of-Attorney That Count
Because Section 32(c) lets an agent present, Section 33 controls the kind of authority that agent must hold. It opens with the restrictive words “For the purposes of section 32, the following powers-of-attorney shall alone be recognised”, and then graduates the formality of authentication according to where the principal resides. Where the principal at the time resides in any part of India in which the Act is in force, the power must be executed before and authenticated by the Registrar or Sub-Registrar within whose district or sub-district the principal resides. Where the principal resides in a part of India in which the Act is not in force, the power must be executed before and authenticated by any Magistrate. Where the principal does not reside in India at all, the power must be executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, or any court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government.
Section 33 also carves out an exception for those who cannot personally appear. If the principal is, by reason of bodily infirmity, unable to attend, or is in jail under civil or criminal process, or is exempt by law from personal appearance in court, the Registrar, Sub-Registrar or Magistrate may, on satisfaction that the power was voluntarily executed by the principal, attest it without requiring his personal attendance — in appropriate cases by deputing an officer or going to the principal. The thread running through Section 33 is that an agent's authority must carry an official imprimatur; a bare or privately attested power-of-attorney will not entitle the holder to present under Section 32(c).
The Central Puzzle: When Does an Agent Become the “Executant”?
The deepest controversy under these sections is the interface between Section 32(a) and Sections 32(c)–33. Suppose A executes a power-of-attorney in favour of B, and B then signs the sale deed in A's name and presents it for registration. Is B presenting as the “person executing” under Section 32(a) — in which case the authentication rigour of Section 33 is bypassed — or is he presenting merely as A's “agent” under Section 32(c), in which case the power-of-attorney must satisfy Section 33? The answer determines whether thousands of conveyances executed through attorneys are validly registered.
In Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar, (2009) 14 SCC 782, a two-Judge Bench took the view that the expression “person executing” in Section 32 refers to the person who actually signs the document in token of execution, whether on his own behalf or on behalf of another. On that reading, a power-of-attorney holder who himself signs and presents the document qualifies as an “executor” under Section 32(a), so the document falls outside Section 32(c) and the Section 33 authentication requirement is not attracted. The Court treated the principal as executing through the hand of his agent, with the agent stepping into the role of executant for presentation purposes.
Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar (2009)
The facts in Rajni Tandon are worth recalling. A flat in Tollygunge, Calcutta, had been conveyed to the appellant Rajni Tandon by a registered deed; one Indra Kumar Halani, as constituted attorney of the vendor Nandlal Tantia, had executed the deed on the vendor's behalf and presented it for registration. The respondents challenged the registration, arguing that it was hit by Section 33(1)(a) because the power-of-attorney in Halani's favour had not been executed before and authenticated by the Registrar or Sub-Registrar of the district where the vendor resided.
The Supreme Court rejected the challenge. It reasoned that since the attorney had himself executed the conveyance and presented it, he was the “person executing” within Section 32(a), not an agent presenting on behalf of another within Section 32(c). The conditions of Section 33, which apply only to presentation under Section 32(c), therefore had no application, and the registration was valid. Rajni Tandon became the leading authority for the proposition that where the attorney both executes and presents, the formal authentication of his power is unnecessary — a holding of obvious practical significance for property transactions routinely closed through attorneys.
Amar Nath v. Gian Chand (2022): No Inquiry into the Power's Validity
The pro-transaction approach was reinforced in Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98, decided on 28 January 2022. The Court there observed that the production of the original power-of-attorney is not necessary where a document is presented for registration by the power-of-attorney holder, and that the Registration Act does not contemplate an inquiry by the registering officer into whether the power-of-attorney holder who executed the document in fact held a valid and subsisting power. The registering officer's enquiry under Sections 34 and 35 is into execution, identity and competence to present — not into the title-validity of the underlying authority.
The reasoning tracked the structure of Sections 32 and 33: Section 33 is expressly “for the purposes of section 32”, and it bites only where the document is presented by a holder of a power-of-attorney within Section 32(c). Where the attorney has himself executed, the matter is governed by Section 32(a). Amar Nath thus sat comfortably alongside Rajni Tandon, treating the validity or revocation of the power as a question for a civil court adjudicating title, not for the registering officer at the counter.
G. Kalawathi Bai v. G. Shashikala (2025): Rajni Tandon Doubted
The position is no longer settled. In G. Kalawathi Bai (D) per LRs v. G. Shashikala (D) per LRs, 2025 INSC 851 (also reported as 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 706), decided on 15 July 2025, a two-Judge Bench expressed disagreement with the ratio in Rajni Tandon. The Bench reasoned that by merely signing a document on behalf of the principal, a power-of-attorney holder does not lose his character as an agent of the principal and become the “executant” in his own right. The deed is executed in the principal's name and conveys the principal's title; the attorney remains an agent. On that view, such a holder continues to be covered by Section 32(c) and must satisfy the requirements of Sections 32(c), 33, 34 and 35 when he presents the document.
Recognising that this directly contradicts Rajni Tandon, the Court declined to decide the conflict itself and referred the question — whether a power-of-attorney holder who signs a sale deed on behalf of the principal becomes the “executant” under Section 32(a) and is thereby relieved of the Section 33 authentication requirement — to a Larger Bench. For aspirants the safe statement of the law as of 2026 is: a two-Judge Bench in 2009 (Rajni Tandon) said such a holder is the executant under Section 32(a); a two-Judge Bench in 2025 (Kalawathi Bai) doubted this and treats him as an agent under Section 32(c) bound by Section 33; and the conflict now awaits authoritative resolution by a Larger Bench.
Section 34: Enquiry Before Registration
Once a competent person has presented the document within the prescribed time, Section 34 commands an enquiry before the registering officer may register it. Subject to the provisions for delay in Sections 25 and 34's own provisos, no document is to be registered under the Act unless the persons executing it, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorised under Section 32, appear before the registering officer within the prescribed time. There is a saving for appearance after the ordinary period on payment of additional fine, but the core requirement is appearance by the right person.
On their appearance the registering officer must, under Section 34(3), enquire into three matters: whether the document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed; satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document; and, where any person appears in a representative, assign or agent capacity, satisfy himself of the right of that person so to appear. This is the substantive heart of the registering officer's function — he is not a passive copyist but is charged with verifying execution, identity and authority before lending the document the public credit of registration.
Section 35: Admission of Execution and Refusal on Denial
Section 35 prescribes what follows from the Section 34 enquiry. If all the persons executing the document appear personally before the registering officer and are personally known to him, or if he is otherwise satisfied that they are the persons they represent themselves to be, and all of them admit execution, or if in the case of a deceased executant his representative or assign admits execution, the officer shall register the document as directed in Sections 58 to 61.
The converse is equally important. Section 35(3) provides that if any person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution, or if any such person appears to the registering officer to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic, or if any person by whom the document purports to be executed is dead and his representative or assign denies its execution, the registering officer shall refuse to register the document as to the person so denying, appearing or dead. The Section 35 enquiry into competence and identity of the presenter dovetails with the Section 34 enquiry into execution: together they ensure that registration proceeds only on a genuine, admitted instrument. A refusal under these provisions leads into the machinery of refusal and appeal under Sections 71 to 76.
Wills and Authorities to Adopt: The Special Regime
Section 32 itself is “subject to the provisions contained in sections 31, 88 and 89”, and the presentation of wills and authorities to adopt is governed by the more liberal Sections 40 and 41. Under Section 40, the testator, or after his death any person claiming as executor or otherwise under a will, may present it for registration; and the donor, or after his death the donee, of an authority to adopt, or the adoptive son, may present the authority. Section 41 then provides for registration of a will or authority to adopt presented after the death of the testator or donor, on the registering officer being satisfied as to the fact of execution and of the death.
The substantive law on wills must not be confused with this registration machinery. In Narinder Singh Rao v. Air Vice Marshal Mahinder Singh Rao, (2013) 9 SCC 425, the Supreme Court was concerned with a handwritten note left by the propositus stating that his wife would inherit his property; it was witnessed by a single person and unregistered. After his death the widow executed a will bequeathing the entire property to one of her nine children, and the others challenged it. The Court held that for a will to be valid it must be attested by at least two witnesses as required by law, and that the father's note, attested by only one witness, could not operate as a valid will — so the property devolved by succession. The case is a reminder that even where registration of a will is optional, the document must still satisfy the substantive requirements of valid attestation; presentation by a competent person under Sections 40–41 cannot cure a defect of execution.
After Registration: The Officer's Authority Is Spent
The registering officer's powers under Sections 34 and 35 are exercised before registration; once a document has actually been registered, his role is at an end. In Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 10 SCC 767, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that once a document has been registered, it is not open to any authority under the Registration Act, 1908 to cancel that registration; the Act contains no provision empowering the registering officer to undo a completed registration. A party aggrieved by a registered instrument must seek relief from a competent civil court, not from the Sub-Registrar.
The same principle of functional finality had been recognised earlier in Bina Murlidhar Hemdev v. Kanhaiyalal Lokram Hemdev, AIR 1999 SC 2171, where the Court observed that after a document is registered the Sub-Registrar no longer retains jurisdiction over it. The officer's power to refuse registration on recorded reasons operates only before registration, under the scheme of Section 71, with an appeal to the Registrar under Section 72. Taken with Sections 34 and 35, these decisions frame the registering officer's authority as a gateway function: he scrutinises competence, identity and execution at the threshold, but exhausts his power the moment the certificate of registration under Section 60 is endorsed.
Practical and Exam Takeaways
For both practice and examination, the scheme of Sections 32 to 35 reduces to a few load-bearing propositions. Presentation must be by a person in one of the three Section 32 classes — executant or claimant, representative or assign, or duly authorised agent; presentation by a stranger goes to jurisdiction, not mere form. An agent presenting under Section 32(c) must hold a power-of-attorney authenticated in exactly the manner Section 33 prescribes, the rigour rising with the principal's distance from the office. Section 32A overlays a mandatory photograph-and-fingerprint requirement on all presenters and on the parties to a transfer of immovable property.
On the much-tested executant-versus-agent question, candidates should be able to state the conflict: Rajni Tandon (2009) and Amar Nath (2022) treat an attorney who signs and presents as the Section 32(a) executant outside Section 33, while G. Kalawathi Bai (2025) treats him as a Section 32(c) agent bound by Section 33 and has referred the issue to a Larger Bench. The registering officer's Section 34 enquiry (execution, identity, authority) and Section 35 verification (competence, identity, admission or denial) are pre-registration safeguards; once registration is complete, Satya Pal Anand and Bina Murlidhar Hemdev confirm that no authority under the Act may cancel it. For the surrounding framework revisit the notes on time for presenting documents and the place of registration.
Frequently asked questions
Who can present a document for registration under Section 32?
Three classes of persons: (1) a person executing or claiming under the document (or claiming under a decree or order, for a copy of one); (2) the representative or assign of such a person; and (3) the agent of such person, representative or assign, duly authorised by a power-of-attorney executed and authenticated under Section 33. Wills and authorities to adopt are governed by the special provisions in Sections 40 and 41.
What kinds of power-of-attorney does Section 33 recognise?
Only powers authenticated according to the principal's residence: if the principal resides where the Act is in force, before and by the Registrar or Sub-Registrar of his district or sub-district; if he resides in a part of India where the Act is not in force, before and by any Magistrate; and if he does not reside in India, before and by a Notary Public, court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government. A privately attested power will not do.
Does an agent who signs a sale deed for the principal need an authenticated power under Section 33?
This is currently unsettled. In Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar (2009) 14 SCC 782 and Amar Nath v. Gian Chand 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98, the Supreme Court held that an attorney who both executes and presents is the “executant” under Section 32(a), so Section 33 does not apply. However, in G. Kalawathi Bai v. G. Shashikala, 2025 INSC 851, a Bench doubted this, holding he remains an agent under Section 32(c) bound by Section 33, and referred the question to a Larger Bench.
What enquiry must the registering officer make under Sections 34 and 35?
Under Section 34 he must verify that the document was executed by the persons it purports to be executed by, satisfy himself of their identity, and — for anyone appearing as representative, assign or agent — satisfy himself of that person's right to appear. Under Section 35, if those persons appear and admit execution and he is satisfied as to identity, he registers the document; if any purported executant denies execution, appears to be a minor, idiot or lunatic, or is dead and his representative denies execution, he must refuse registration as to that person.
Can a Sub-Registrar cancel a document after it has been registered?
No. In Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., (2016) 10 SCC 767, a three-Judge Bench held that once a document is registered, no authority under the Registration Act, 1908 can cancel that registration, as the Act contains no such power. Bina Murlidhar Hemdev v. Kanhaiyalal Lokram Hemdev, AIR 1999 SC 2171, similarly recognised that the Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction over a document after registration. The remedy lies with a competent civil court.
What is the effect of Section 32A on presentation?
Section 32A, inserted in 2001, requires every person presenting a document under Section 32 to affix his passport-size photograph and fingerprints to the document, and, where the document transfers ownership of immovable property, the photographs and fingerprints of each buyer and seller named in it. The registering officer endorses these under Section 52. It is an identity-verification and anti-fraud safeguard operating alongside the competence requirements of Section 32.