Temporary residence and procedural irregularity under the Registration Act did not defeat valid authentication of a power of attorney.

Temporary residence was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Registrar to authenticate a power of attorney under section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908, where the facts showed the executant was residing there at the relevant time. An alleged irregular presentation of the instrument did not invalidate later authentication or the registration of the mortgage deed, because a procedural defect does not vitiate an act done within jurisdiction under section 33. A Registrar's mistaken invocation of the proviso to section 33(1) was treated as an error within jurisdiction, not a jurisdictional nullity, and the authentication remained valid. The challenge to the power of attorney and mortgage registration therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether temporary residence at Cuttack was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Registrar to authenticate the power of attorney under section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908; (ii) whether the alleged unauthorised presentation of the power of attorney for registration invalidated its subsequent authentication and the registration of the mortgage deed under sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, 1908; (iii) whether the Registrar's authentication of the power of attorney under the proviso to section 33(1) was invalid because the executant was said not to be suffering from bodily infirmity.

Issue (i): Whether temporary residence at Cuttack was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Registrar to authenticate the power of attorney under section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires a document to be presented or authenticated in the manner prescribed by sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, 1908. For authentication under section 33(1)(a), residence need not be permanent; temporary residence is enough if the facts show that the executant was residing there at the relevant time. The surrounding circumstances, including the executant's own description and the Registrar's endorsement, supported the finding that he was residing at Cuttack when the power was executed and authenticated.

Conclusion: Temporary residence at Cuttack was sufficient, and the Registrar had jurisdiction to authenticate the power of attorney.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged unauthorised presentation of the power of attorney for registration invalidated its subsequent authentication and the registration of the mortgage deed under sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Analysis: Section 32 governs presentation for registration, while section 33 governs authentication of a power of attorney. A mistaken endorsement describing the instrument as presented for registration did not alter the legal position where the instrument was in truth produced only for authentication and was authenticated under section 33. Even if an earlier presentation was irregular, that defect did not vitiate the later independent act of authentication when the Registrar had jurisdiction and the requirements of section 33 were satisfied. The distinction between want of jurisdiction and a mere procedural irregularity was central.

Conclusion: The alleged defect in presentation did not invalidate the authentication or the registration of the mortgage deed.

Issue (iii): Whether the Registrar's authentication of the power of attorney under the proviso to section 33(1) was invalid because the executant was said not to be suffering from bodily infirmity.

Analysis: A Registrar's decision that the case falls within the proviso to section 33(1) concerns his exercise of jurisdiction and not its existence. Even if the factual basis for invoking the proviso were mistaken, that would amount only to an error within jurisdiction and would not render the authentication void. The subsequent execution before the Registrar at the residence provided additional support for validity.

Conclusion: The authentication was not invalid merely because the executant was alleged not to be suffering from bodily infirmity.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the validity of the power of attorney and the mortgage registration failed, so the decree in favour of the mortgagee was sustained and the appeals stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908, temporary residence is sufficient to found the Registrar's jurisdiction, and a mistake in the procedure of authentication does not vitiate registration where the Registrar otherwise has jurisdiction.

---