JUDGMENT P.Krishna Bhat, J. - This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in O.S.No.80/2011 before the learned Senior Civil and JMFC, Jewargi, which ended in dismissal and the appeal filed before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in R.A.No.8/2018 was dismissed. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the learned Trial Court in the course of this judgment for the sake of convenience. 3. The appellant is the plaintiff before the Trial Court and respondent Nos.1and 2 were defendant Nos.1 and 2 respectively. Suit in O.S.No.80/2011 was filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit land bearing Survey No.65/3, Khata No.652, measuring 1 acre 29 guntas and another piece of land bearing Survey No.65/4, Khata No.652, measuring 5 acres 5 guntas, situated in Jewargi taluk, Kalaburagi district and a declaration that the irrevocable power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 on 31.08.2009 is wrong, illegal and unenforceable in law and not binding on him and also for a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 06.09.2009 bearing document No.2609/2009-10 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is wrong, illegal and a sham document without consideration and not binding on him and further for a permanent injunction for restraining defendants or any person acting or claiming through them from causing obstruction or interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit lands and for costs. Defendant Nos.1and 2 had filed their separate written-statements before the Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has framed relevant issues for trial. During the trial, the plaintiff has examined his father, who was also his power of attorney for prosecuting the suit as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1 and Exs.D1 to D17 were marked for the defendants. 4. After hearing and consideration of entire records, the learned Trial Court by its judgment dated 30.11.2017 dismissed the suit. Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1 and Exs.D1 to D17 were marked for the defendants. 4. After hearing and consideration of entire records, the learned Trial Court by its judgment dated 30.11.2017 dismissed the suit. In a judgment marked for its lucidity and attention to details of the case and settled principles of law, learned trial Judge has found that the plaintiff and his father who was his power of attorney for prosecuting the suit were educated persons inasmuch as the former was an engineering graduate in animation and the latter was a law graduate and also a businessman and the execution of Ex.D5, a registered irrevocable power of attorney dated 31.08.2009 having been admitted and the plea for impeaching the legal validity of the execution of the same being lacking in particulars in terms of Order 1 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC for short) legality and validity of the same cannot be questioned and further the sale deed as per Ex.D6 dated 06.09.2009 having been executed on the strength of such irrevocable power of attorney, cannot again be impeached on the ground of want of consideration for which, according to the learned trial Judge, the remedy available is by filing a suit for recovery of unpaid consideration amount. He also entered a finding by placing reliance on a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court ( Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and Others, (2010) AIR SC 2807 ), that the frame of the suit was bad in as much as the plaintiff being the executant of Ex.D5 ought to have sought for cancellation of the power of attorney which he had not and similarly and for the same reason Ex.D6 Sale Deed having been executed by the power agent of the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.2, he ought to have sought cancellation of Ex.D6, which he had not and therefore he is not entitled to the relief which he has sought in the suit. As already noticed, the appeal filed by the plaintiff in R.A.No.8/2018 before the III Additional District and Session Judge, Kalaburagi has been dismissed by the judgment dated 08.03.2019. 5. As already noticed, the appeal filed by the plaintiff in R.A.No.8/2018 before the III Additional District and Session Judge, Kalaburagi has been dismissed by the judgment dated 08.03.2019. 5. In support of this second appeal, while conceding that an appeal under Section 100 of CPC can be maintained only if substantial question of law arises in the same, learned counsel Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, submitted before me that according to him, a substantial question of law arises in this appeal and that according to him was on account of non advertence to an important legal aspect by both the learned Courts below. The legal objection of Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel, is that the properties subject matter of the sale deed under Ex.D6 executed on the strength of an irrevocable power of attorney Ex.D5 being situated within the jurisdiction of Subregistrar of Jewargi taluk, which (Ex.D5) in turn was executed and registered before the Sub-registrar of Mumbai City and therefore Ex.D5 could not have conferred any power or authority on defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed as per Ex.D6. In other words, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that for Ex.D5 to have any legal effect, it ought to have been executed and registered before the Sub-registrar having jurisdiction over the properties situated in Jewargi taluk. 6. Learned counsel Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande placed reliance on Sections 28 and 33 of the Registration Act (the Act for short). It is necessary to make a reference to the said provisions of the Act for the purpose of elucidating the above matter. Sections 28 and 33 of the said Act read as follows: 28. Place for registering documents relating to land. Save as in this Part otherwise provided, every document mentioned in Section 17, sub-section (1), clauses (a), (b), [(c), (d) and (e), Section 17, sub-section (2), insofar as such document affects immovable property], and section 18, clauses (a), (b) [(c) and (cc),] shall be presented for registration in the office of a Sub-registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate. 33. Power-of-attorney recognizable for purposes of Section 32. 33. Power-of-attorney recognizable for purposes of Section 32. (1) for the purposes of section 32, the following powers of attorney shall alone be recognized, namely:- (a) if the principal at the time of executing the power-of-attorney resides in any part of [India] in which this Act is for the time being in force, a power-of9 attorney executed before and authenticated by the Registrar or Sub- Registrar within whose district or subdistrict the principal resides; (b) if the principal at the time aforesaid [resides in any part of India in which this Act is not in force], a power-ofattorney executed before and authenticated by any Magistrate; (c) if the principal at the time aforesaid does not reside in [India], a power-ofattorney executed before the authenticated by a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, [Indian] Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government. Provided that the following persons shall not be required to attend at any registration-office or Court for the purpose of executing any such power-of-attorney as is mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of this Section, namely:- (i) persons who by reason of bodily infirmity are unable without risk or serious inconvenience so to attend; (ii) persons who are in jail under civil or criminal process; and (iii) persons exempt by law from personal appearance in Court. 7. A reading of the above shows that under Section 33 of the Act, power of attorney can be registered anywhere in India or outside of India and such power of attorneys are valid. In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that both the plaintiff and defendant No.1 who were either residing in Mumbai or doing business or both and therefore they had conveniently executed Ex.D5 and registered it in Mumbai itself and that being a concurrent finding of fact, it is too late in the day for the appellant to challenge the correctness of the same. The law permits registering of power of attorney anywhere in India or outside of India. Therefore, even though the properties in respect of which Ex.D5 is executed is situated in Jewargi Taluka, the registration of document Ex.D5 in Mumbai cannot be said to be affecting the legal validity of the same. In that view of the matter, there is absolutely no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. 8. Therefore, even though the properties in respect of which Ex.D5 is executed is situated in Jewargi Taluka, the registration of document Ex.D5 in Mumbai cannot be said to be affecting the legal validity of the same. In that view of the matter, there is absolutely no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. 8. By placing reliance on two decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India [ Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2009) 7 SCC 363 ] and [ Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 656 ], learned counsel for the appellant tried to contend that Ex.D5 creates an interest in immovable property and therefore in terms of law laid down in the aforesaid two decisions, the same is illegal and therefore the sale deed Ex.D6 executed on the strength of such Ex.D5 also should be held to be illegal. I do not find any substance in the said submission. In the aforementioned two decisions, the Hon ble Supreme Court after careful analysis of legal provisions in the backdrop of certain undesirable developments taking place in the field of real estate business, had held that the sale or purchase through sale agreement, general power of attorney and Will, which in some places were regarded as creating interest in immovable properties defeats the object of Income Tax Act and Registration Act etc. leading to large scale loss to the public exchequer apart from creating law and order situation. It further held that creation of interest in immovable property could only be through duly registered sale deeds or such other instruments recognized by law. In the present case, there cannot be any dispute that interest in the suit schedule properties were created only by a registered sale deed under Ex.D6 and therefore the above two decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court are not applicable to the facts of this case. 9. However, learned counsel bravely sought to contend that Ex.D5 itself had purported to create interest in the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.1. In support of the said submission, learned counsel drew my attention to the following clauses appearing in Ex.D5 and they read as follows: 1. To sell, to dispose of assign, transfer, nominate/or alienate in any manner whatsoever all and similar and said property. 2. In support of the said submission, learned counsel drew my attention to the following clauses appearing in Ex.D5 and they read as follows: 1. To sell, to dispose of assign, transfer, nominate/or alienate in any manner whatsoever all and similar and said property. 2. To sell and execute deed of conveyance, agreements, affidavits, Indemnities, Rectification Deeds which my said attorney shall consider necessary to entered into such covenants as may be fully and effectually for conveying the said property as I could myself in favour of person and to file due discharge receipt for and on my behalf. 10. I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe to the view that above two clauses in Ex.D5 in any manner have the effect of creating interest in the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.1. Learned counsel particularly placed emphasis on to sell, to dispose of assign, transfer . appearing in the clauses and contended that the said expressions have the effect of creating interest in the immovable property subject matter of the sale deed Ex.D6. According to him, as an owner of the property or a person having interest in the immovable property alone could sell the same, by employing the said expression in Ex.D5, an interest has been created in favour of defendant No.1 over the lands, subject matter of the suit. It is trite law that a document or an instrument has to be read as a whole and so read it only shows that the plaintiff has appointed defendant No.1 as an agent to sell the property mentioned in Ex.D5; the expression to sell having been compendiously used to mean all such acts like, to publicize the fact that the property is available for sale, negotiate with the prospective buyers, execute an agreement of sale, accept consideration and also to execute the sale deed on behalf of the principal namely the plaintiff which are all necessary and incidental to any sale transaction. Therefore, it is idle for the plaintiff to contend that an interest in the property subject matter of Ex.D5 had been created under the said document only because those expressions have been used. 11. In the view as above, I am not satisfied that any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the above appeal and accordingly, the appeal is liable to be rejected. Hence, the following: ORDER The above appeal is dismissed. 11. In the view as above, I am not satisfied that any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the above appeal and accordingly, the appeal is liable to be rejected. Hence, the following: ORDER The above appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.