JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral):- Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure P-4) refusing to register assignment deed presented on behalf of respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioner and also the order in appeal dated 25.09.2012 (Annexure P-7), affirming the order passed by the Sub Registrar. 2. Axis Bank - respondent No.4 through its agent Shri S. Sankaranarayana Sarma presented an assignment deed for registration before the Sub Registrar on 19.10.2011. Such document was not registered by the Sub-Registrar for the reason that it is based upon power of attorney dated 19.07.2005 executed by UTI Bank and was not a registered document. Such order was affirmed in appeal as well. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the power of attorney executed by UTI Bank was to represent the Bank and was not appointing an agent, therefore, such document is not required to be registered in terms of Section 32(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’) and that the power of attorney executed by UTI Bank is on behalf of Axis Bank and that Axis Bank is nothing, but successor of UTI Bank in terms of notification dated 02.08.2007, published in the Gazette of India (Part II- Section 4) dated 01.09.2007. He also relies upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajni Tandon Vs. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar & another, [2009(5) Law Herald (SC) 3048] : (2009) 14 SCC 782 to contend that registration of power of attorney is necessary only if the power of attorney is in favour of a person, who is presenting the document in terms of Section 32(c) of the Act, but power of attorney is not required to be registered, if power of attorney is in terms of Section 32 (b) of the Act. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and find that the order dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure P-4) and the appellate order dated 25.09.2012 (Annexure P-7) are not sustainable in law. Section 32 of the Act needs to be extracted to appreciate the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties. It reads as under: “32. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and find that the order dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure P-4) and the appellate order dated 25.09.2012 (Annexure P-7) are not sustainable in law. Section 32 of the Act needs to be extracted to appreciate the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties. It reads as under: “32. Persons to present documents for registration – Except in the cases mentioned in sections 31, 88 and 89, every document to be registered under this Act, whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper registration office – (a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or (b) by the representative or assign of such a person, or (c) by the agent of such a person, representative or assign, duly authorized by power-of-attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned.” 5. All documents are required to be presented for registration by the person executing the document; any person claiming under the document presented for registration, and; in case the said document is a copy of a decree or order, any person claiming under the decree or order. A reading of Section 32(c) would show that the power of attorney is required to be executed and authenticated in the manner hereinafter mentioned i.e. Section 33 if the presentation is by an agent of such a person, representative or assign, on whose behalf the document is being presented for registration. But if the document is by the representative or assign of a person in terms of Section 32(a) or (b), who is executing the document, the same is not required to be presented by a person on the basis of a registering document in terms of Section 33 of the Act. 6. The power of attorney in the present case was on behalf of UTI Bank, predecessor of Axis Bank in terms of notification dated 02.08.2007. Therefore, such power of attorney was not required to be registered being a power of attorney falling in Section 32(a) or (b) of the Act. It is not a power of attorney in favour of an agent or representative within meaning of Section 32(c) of the Act. Therefore, such power of attorney was not required to be registered being a power of attorney falling in Section 32(a) or (b) of the Act. It is not a power of attorney in favour of an agent or representative within meaning of Section 32(c) of the Act. Such power of attorney is to represent a corporate entity, which cannot physically be presented except through an agent. Therefore, the presentation of assignment deed on the basis of power of attorney is by the principle itself and that such attorney is not in favour of an agent appointed to represent the principle falling under Section 32(c) of the Act. 7. The Supreme Court in Rajni Tandon’s case (supra) was considering the execution of a conveyance deed on the basis of unregistered power of attorney. It was held that in terms of Section 32 of the Act, the person who actually signs or marks the document in token of execution, whether for himself or on behalf of some other person, is the person executing the document. Thus, ‘person executing’ as used in Section 32(a) of the Act signifies the person actually executing the document and includes a principal who executes by means of an agent. 8. Though the aforesaid case was in respect of execution of a conveyance deed by a power of attorney, whereas the present is the case of representing principle on the basis of power of attorney, but the ration of said judgment is relevant. The Court held to the following effect: “21. Section 32 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 documents for Registration. The use of the word “or” between the Clauses of Section 32 demonstrates that the legislature intended the said Clauses to be read disjunctively and not conjunctively. It is settled law that the use of the word ‘or’ is used to signify the disjunctive nature of a provision. In this regard reference may be made to the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2006) 9 SCC 591 . 22. It is settled law that the use of the word ‘or’ is used to signify the disjunctive nature of a provision. In this regard reference may be made to the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2006) 9 SCC 591 . 22. Clause (a) of Section 32 specifies that a document can be presented for registration by (i) by the person executing the document (ii) any person claiming 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 were the document is presented not by any person mentioned in (i), (ii) and (iii) above 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. xx xx xx 24. The words “executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned” in Section 32 (c) would mean the 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 “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 in Clause (a) of Section 32. 25. The aforesaid position makes it explicitly clear that Section 32 of the Act requires the documents sought to be registered, to be presented, inter alia by the person executing it. In other words, the 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 Sub- Registrar the actual executant who, in fact, executes the document in question. In fact, the ratio of the decision in Ram Gopal (supra) as reported in AIR 1960 Punjab 226 has laid down a similar proposition on the conjoint reading of Section 32 and Section 33 of the Act and after referring to all the judgments noted hereinbefore. In fact, the ratio of the decision in Ram Gopal (supra) as reported in AIR 1960 Punjab 226 has laid down a similar proposition on the conjoint reading of Section 32 and Section 33 of the Act and after referring to all the judgments noted hereinbefore. Same view has been expressed earlier by the Bombay High Court in Ratilal Nathubhai and Anr. v. Rasiklal Maganlal and Ors., AIR 1950 Bombay 326. 26. It is important to bear in mind that one of the categories of persons who are eligible to present documents before the registration office in terms of Section 32 of the Act is the “person executing” the document. The expression “person executing” used in Section 32 of the Act, can only refer to the person who actually signs or marks the document in token of execution, whether for himself or on behalf of some other person. Thus, “person executing” as used in Section 32 (a) of the Act signifies the person actually executing the document and includes a principal who executes by means of an agent. Where a person hold a power of attorney which authorises him to execute a document as agent for some one else, and he executes a document under the terms of the power of attorney, he is, so far as the registration office is concerned, the actual executant of the document and is entitled under Section 32 (a) to present it for registration and get it registered. xx xx xx 33. Where a deed is executed by an agent for a principal and the same agent signs, appears and presents the deed or admits execution before the Registering Officer, that is not a case of presentation under Section 32 (c) of the Act. As mentioned earlier the provisions of Section 33 will come into play only in cases where presentation is in terms of Section 32 (c) of the Act. In other words, only in cases where the person(s) signing the document cannot present the document before the registering officer and gives a power of attorney to another to present the document that the provisions of Section 33 get attracted. It is only in such a case, that the said power of attorney has to be necessarily executed and authenticated in the manner provided under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Act.” 9. It is only in such a case, that the said power of attorney has to be necessarily executed and authenticated in the manner provided under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Act.” 9. In the present case, the assignment deed was presented by the principle through its representative on the strength of notarized power of attorney. Such presentation is in terms of Section 32(a) of the Act. Such attorney is also by the representative of a person executing the document falling under Section 32(b) of the Act, but such power of attorney does not fall within Section 32(c) of the Act, which alone would require registration in terms of Section 33 of the Act. 10. In view of the above, we find that orders dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure P-4) and 25.09.2012 (Annexure P-7) are not sustainable in law. The same are accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to register the document in accordance with law. ---------0.B.S.0------------