 When the subject came of execution and retestation of compulsory registrations, registrable documents, the issue arose that who could be compulsively called upon that why don't you give the issue made understand to the audience, which they can register within their minds in the most plausible manner, which not only the lawyers but other people at large could understand. So the only one name which could be registered in the minds of the audience was that it should be K. Prabhakar. And we have taken various sessions with Mr. K. Prabhakar and he has been kind enough, not only during COVID and post COVID also, that is always willing to share his knowledge. For the persons at large, we would like to highlight the today's topic in execution and attestation of compulsory registrable documents. What is a legal journey? What is the significance thereof? In this today's session, Mr. Prabhakar will take a cross to us. And once Mr. Prabhakar is there, we are aware that there will be flurry of judgments on different aspects. And being a Sunday, we know that everybody is tight pressed with time, but the speaker draws attention. He's more like a magnet that people get themselves drawn to hear the session even on a Sunday. Thank you Mr. K. Prabhakar and advocate from Madurai High Court for accepting an invite over to you. Thank you Mr. Vikas. This is a topic which anybody lawyer as well as a lawyer who enters the profession would like to have a grip on the subject. It is one thing for the lawyer to fight it before a court of law. And another for a layman to know the significance of execution and attestation. Probably the lawyers were some practice before a trial court, could have come across many cases where it is hard to take the attesting witness to the court. Many of the cases a chance witness at the time of registration, you may not have attest or who knows to you to vent ahead and go with the scribe or the document writer. The document writer brings somebody and this somebody who attest the document may not be known to you. And ultimately when the document is being challenged, the real problem arose for the executing in case of many document except the bill. And the beneficiaries or the executor of the bill after the demise of the test state will find it very difficult to bring in attesting witness to prove a document. Therefore the cautious approach would be, if you want to safeguard the rights under the document, the primary advice which any lawyer would give to a client is take a good attesting witness who may in the future will be able to come to the court to tell about the truth. That is one aspect. The second is people like us would advise if some person comes to us to execute a bill. We will advise them to have an attesting witness who is much younger than the testator. The probability of the testator or the attesting witness surviving the testator will be more or higher if the attesting witness is much younger than the testator so that he may be aligned to prove the document if it is challenged. There are two times of which we are going to discuss today. One is the execution and another is the attestation. Execution has not been defined in any of the act. Whereas attestation has been defined in the section 3 of the transfer of property act 1882. Then what is the execution? Is it a mere signing of a document or it requires something more than a mere affixing your signature in a document? Since the execution has not been denied or defined anywhere, many cases crop up under section 35 of the registration act where the execution is challenged at the time of registration of a document itself where the law enjoins a duty on the registering authority to be convinced that so and so has executed the document. In many cases, the execution will also be challenging before a court of law. If somebody thinks that there is a foul play or the document has been brought up by fraud, pollution, duress, undue influence, misrepresentation under section 16 to 22 of the contract act. Therefore, the primary importance in focusing before a court of law when the execution of the document is denied. The execution has to be proved. The execution consists of two components. One is the signing and another is animus or the intention to sign. Law always says that the intention of the executor is to execute the document. Therefore, mere signing of a document is not enough. What is required is furthermore namely the executor knowing the contents of the document or realizing the contents of the document and intended to execute the document and as affix it is signature. Therefore, mere affixing the signature may not be enough to show that there was an execution. But there are some exceptions to this namely if a person has admitted his signature in a registered document then the burden shifts namely it is for the executant if he is alive like in a case of sale deed or a settlement deed to show under what circumstances he has affixed his signature. Can he still say that after putting his signature or affixing his signature that he was not aware of the contents of the document? That is another part of the story. But the first part is always the court finds that the execution has to be proved and this execution consists of a signing of the document and also the intention to sign. Straight away, one can say that admission of a signature is not enough. I can very well quote a judgment of the Madrasaikore reported in Saiyaparaju, Suraya versus Koduri, Kondama 1949 to MLJ page 684. That was one of the oldest decision where the Lordships have discussed about the execution and the execution consists of two parts and in fact they refer to, if I remember correctly, 1915 Privy Council or something like that. And consists of two parts namely the mere signature affixing the document is not enough. What is a signature? Is there any difference between a signature and a mere sign? Even though the law doesn't speak about or define the execution, signing has been defined under section 356, if I remember, of the General Process Act. Signing is any mark. If a person who signs the document or who doesn't write his name can put a mark. That also is a signature under law. Therefore the courts have held that even though the execution consists of two parts, the signature which has to be taken from General Process Act namely the sign. Sign is writing a full name as a signature or affixing your mark or includes even the thumb impression if you are illiterate or not signed. The second judgment on the aspect is Krishna Ganshayam versus Maruti Mukunda, 1963 Bombay Law Reporter 578. That was also a case where the court has held that mere signing of a document is not enough. It should be accompanied by a mental capacity or a person who signs the document should know what he is signing. And it is always open for a party if he affixes a signature without the mental act or the animus to execute the document. He can always come forward and say that the document executed was never intended to be executed. How it can happen? Suppose a person goes to a register office to execute a mortgage or he goes to execute a bill. The other man, somebody plays a foul play and instead of getting a mortgage deed the fellow is forced to affix his signature in a sale deed. He was under the impression that what has been signed was only a mortgage or in case he was under the impression that he was signing only a bill ultimately turned out to be a gift. But in these cases, the party can always take a stand that what I intend to execute is different from what has been obtained. That is, the character of the document which has intended to be executed is different from what has been obtained. In such a cases, if I remember currently, in one of the classes I have also cited 1968 Supreme Court. If the character of the document is different from what has been executed then the document is void. It is not even voidable. Voidable documents or documents which are brought into existence by fraud, coercion and the influence misrepresentation. Whereas if the character of the document itself is not true or is different from what has been obtained then this document is unenforceable in the eyes of law. It is void from the insuffction. Then another interesting case, Badri Narayanan versus Raja Bhagyathamal in 1997 SCC page 101. That is a case where an illiterate old lady was brought up to the register office and she has a fixed signature of the document without knowing what has happened. The execution is alright. Namely, the signature she has a fixed. But the execution consists of the second component, namely the party should have the intention to execute such a document. If it is an illiterate Pardhanasi woman, an old lady who is a rustic villager then the burden is upon the person who relies upon the document to show before a court of law that a particular illiterate lady was aware of the content of the document and has executed the signature. Normally, if there is a sale deed registered, there is a presumption attached to the section 60s across two of the registration act. Namely, the execution under the registration has been done in a normal way by the public authority. But the exception called out is in case of an illiterate rustic villager or a Pardhanasi woman, if she executes the document and subsequently she says that I never intended to execute this document, then the burden is upon the person who relies upon the document to show that the particular executed out of her free will or his free will knowing the contents had executed the document. Then there are some instances where the attesting witness or attestation is brought into play. Namely, whether an attesting witness, whether a person who executes the document can be an attesting witness. These peculiar facts came into discussion before the Madras High Court in Gomadhi versus Gomadhi Ammal Vashash Krishna here. Gomadhi Ammal Vashash Krishna here reported in A.I.R. 1954, Madras page 126. A.I.R. 1956, Madras page 126. I mean, peculiar facts are this. A person executes a power of attorney. The power of attorney has such a power of attorney of the principal executes the document. Say, for example, a bondage. When the power of attorney executes the document, the principal was also available to attest the document. There are only two attesting witnesses and this document was under challenge that there was no valid attestation contemplated under law. There are three documents which are compulsorily required attestation. One is mortgage, two bill, three gift. In these cases, the attestation is mandatory. Attestation has been defined under section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act that it should always be two or more persons who saw the executant signing the document or the executant acknowledges the signature found in the document and the attesting witnesses signature affixed in the document has been seen by the attestator or the executant as well. Once this definition is taken into consideration, it was challenging before the Madras cycle. In the case on hand, namely the year 1954, Madras, the court was forced to consider the principal is not a signatory to the document as an executant. The principal has been represented by the power of attorney. The power of attorney signs the document. Two witnesses attested, one of them is the principal himself. The court has a dilemma. The principal who has already been represented as an executant of the document even though he was not a signatory. Can he sign the document as an attestation witness? The court held that the dual role cannot be played with the executant in such a case. There is no valid attestation as contemplated on the law and therefore the document is an attestation. Kindly be aware that the executant whether he signs himself or to a power of attorney cannot become an attesting witness. But the law says a power of attorney to execute the document on behalf of the principal can transfer the right under the document to himself. He has got a dual capacity. Power of attorney has got a dual capacity. Dably he can be a seller on behalf of the principal and he can also be the buyer for himself in his individual capacity. But this concept of the power of a dual role of a power of attorney cannot be preceded into service in case of an executant. Once the executant is represented by the power of attorney and if he signs the document then the executant or the principal cannot be the attesting witness. The next judgment is Durga Din. Durga Din versus Suraj. I think it is a judgment of the Allah and I could fool Benj where a person advance the money. It was all before the tsunami transaction prohibition act. But his name does not find a place in the document. He lend the money through his binamidar and at the execution of the document this person who has lent the money became an attesting witness. Subsequently a suit was filed and the person who is the ostensible owner said that the person whose name is found in the document is only a binamidar and I am the real beneficiary of the document. The challenge was mounted on the account that even though the binami transaction was valid on those days the person who has signed the document as an attesting witness has a dual role to play. Namely he is also the beneficiary under the document and at the same time he has also signed as an attesting witness therefore the attesting attestation itself is not valid. However the fool Benj will kill that subject transaction. The document is enforceable. Namely a person who comes forward and says that I am the real person who has lent the money after the document but instead of my binami's name has been found in the document I have attested the document, the original is with me except that the plea is possible in those days and this plea of dual role by the binami or the person, the real ostensibly owner has been found to be not at fault by the Honourable High Court or the fool Benj. Can an interested person be an attesting witness or will come to the second part of the discussion, attestation all these cases have been under the execution now we will come to the attestation part. The attestation as such is defined under section 3 but the attestation as contemplator under Indian law as opposed to the British law for any other country is much wider. In 1926 if I remember correctly an amendment was made to the transfer of property act for section 3 and the definition of attestation was made much wider. What is an attestation? Even the executant should have the animus whether the attesting witness should have the animus to attest the document or not or can he be a chance witness? The court says that he should have an intention Abdul Jabbar Singh versus Venkata Shastri A.A. 1969 Supreme Court Page 1147 Abdul Jabbar Singh versus Venkata Shastri reported in A.A. 1969 Supreme Court Page 1147 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court said that even a attesting witness should have the intention to attest the document why it is so? The attestation is a Solomon Act it is an act statutorily recognized by the law it requires a fulfillment of a person's intention any chance of witness who attests the document without any intention will be in a suit I tell you why attesting witness can very well come forward and say that subsequently that I was not even aware of the contents of the document the law says that he need not know the contents but he should have the intention to exhibit the document what is the difference between this two contents of the document attestation is only in respect of the signature therefore a person if he attest the document he has to come to the court and say that this document was executed by the executant of the data before us I saw them executing or signing the document the second part is in many cases if it is also a challenge to depose before the court that the executant had a sound discoursing state of mind obviously the attesting witness in such cases should have the intention to attest and the second part why he doesn't need to know the contents the law says if he knows the contents then the principle of Gestapo under section 115 will click in in many cases in the olden days you can see the documents in the regional places or the regional language the attesting witnesses would sign the document and with a prefix to the signature that I know the contents I know the contents if the attesting witness signed the document by saying that I know the contents then he is bound by the document and the recital of the document I will show you on the other hand if he signs the document without knowing the contents he may not be stopped section 115 will not come into play when it will come into play suppose an attesting witness has got an independent right over the subject matter of a particular document and if he goes and attests the document and in many cases a purchaser who doesn't want any dispute in future may insist upon the children of a original owner of the property to be an attesting witness so that in future they cannot object to it but the law says or makes a distinction that once an attesting witness doesn't know the contents of the document or the facts of the case reveal that he was not aware of the contents of the document he will be safe on the other hand if he knew the contents of the document and signed that same then Estoppel will come into play if I remember correctly in one judgment of his Dr. Vimala of the Madras Psycho after censoring all the judgments of over 100 years in 2013 has said that Estoppel will certainly apply to an attesting witness if you know the contents of the document in 2013 Madras Weekly Notes the next is can a blind man be an attesting witness can a blind man be an attesting witness blind man is entitled to be executed of a man blind man can also be an attesting witness this is appealed by the court if I remember correctly Sundar Lal versus Siddharthapur not sure which court it was Sundar Lal versus Siddharthapur where the court said that the attesting witness can be a blind man how then the attestation can be true you see the definition of the section 3 the attestor should see the executant signing the document or he should get an acknowledgement from the executant that it is his signature if the signature in the document was affixed before ever the attestor comes into play or not with the presence of the attestor and if the attestor comes into play thereafter still the attestation is valid if they are able to establish that the executant signed the document not in my presence but he has acknowledged his signature in the document and requesting us to sign as an attesting witness if it is so even a blind man can be an attesting witness and come to the court and say that the executant said or acknowledged that it is his signature and kindly attest therefore I attest it the law doesn't prohibit a blind man from becoming an attesting witness but it all depends upon the facts of the case if the blind man got an acknowledgement from the executant that he has signed the document then his attestation is valid next case is can attestation comes to admission Ruplal v. Shankar 1951 RLW Rajasthan Law Weekly Page 494 Ruplal v. Shankar 1951 RLW 494 where the attesting witness has got some right over the property cited of Slashiv Vimala judgement in 2013 by the Manavasai court this was a 51 Rajasthan where the court said that unless and until the attest are new the contents of the document it does not amount to admission again if it is an admission then the estoppel will come into play if there is no admission the estoppel will not come into play and when it will be an admission a person knowing the contents of the document and signs as an attesting witness and the contents of the document are against the interest of the attesting witness then the lack of interest in the subject matter has cited or recited the document amounts to an admission but if the attesting witness doesn't recollect or you are not even aware of the contents and the party who lies upon the document was not in a position to place any material before the court that the document was attested by the person with the knowledge then it will not affect his writing the next to it is Kashi boy versus Parvati boy 1995-3 SCC page 565 3 SCC page 565 as a case of a wonderful said the attestation is of a statutory nature it cannot be made therefore once the law says that it has to be done in a particular way it cannot be done in any other way therefore once the statute kicks in and says this is the document requires an attestation and if this attestation is like this then you cannot bail it even by admission next case is an interesting one whether a sub-register can be an attesting witness or when a sub-register can be an attesting witness the sub-register in normal circumstances cannot be called as an attesting witness but there may be cases where the sub-register can also be an attesting witness but one has to find whether the sub-register on facts of the case is really an attesting witness I think in one of the case a full bench judgment was considered Regist Benghada Shastri versus Rahina Benghada Shastri versus Rahina AAR 1962 Madras page a full bench judgment AAR 1962 Madras page there is a case of a registering officer signing the document there are two types involved one is the registering officer doing his duty of registering the document and signing the document as a registering authority he cannot be called as an attesting witness the reason is this as I have said earlier attestation requires an intention to attest if a sub-register in his official capacity makes an endorsement in the document then he cannot be called as an attesting witness however if the sub-register apart from making the endorsement that he was the registering the document as a public officer and signs the same by stating that I know this man personally there is also possible at one point of time now these have been guidelines have come from all places in olden days we can see documents where the registering authority could also be an attesting witness by signing it because I know the man personally if such an endorsement are available or if the registering officer comes to the court and says that I have attested the document then his evidence has to be seen in the larger picture of the factual matrix to find whether really this man is an attesting witness or not. In the case before the full Benjali Madras I called it has been discussed that the evidence of the sub-register was a clincher in that case namely he deposed only to the effect that he signed the document as a registrar there was nothing on evidence to show that the registering authority signed the document as an attesting witness the court therefore added a rider a sub-register can be an attesting witness provided he has got the anonymous attested to sign the document as an attester if this anonymous is lacking then sub-register cannot be called as an attesting witness next is can a scribe be an attesting witness a lot of confusion namely there are two columns of the bottom of any document attesting witnesses and thereafter a document writer there are some judgments in the Madras which are all wrong that if this scribe places his signature after putting it as a scribe then he cannot be called as an attesting witness the court said that once the document says that he is only a scribe then his evidence cannot be countered as an attesting witness but I am afraid that the position of law is not correct the reason is this intention has to be seen and it is a mental act this has to be seen in the overall picture of the evidence suppose this person comes to the court the scribe comes to the court and says even though there is only scribe or attestation and scribe but it is only a scribe I put my signature as an attesting witness also because I know both the parties I know the contents of the document I know the signature of the exhibit I signed not only as a scribe but also with an intention to attest then a scribe can also be an attesting witness but one interesting case which involves a lawyer then move on Matthew Oman versus Susheela Matthew Matthew Oman versus Susheela Matthew reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court page 786 page 786 2006 Supreme Court page 786 page 786 an interesting case a senior trial lawyer in Kerala executes a bill there is only three lines in the bill and there was only one attesting witness and then there is a scribe the scribe was a junior to the lawyer namely the senior counselor who executes a three line bill has only one attesting witness and another is junior who has prepared the three lines it was also put as a scribe go through the judgment that four lines of the bill is also found in the judgment with the attesting witness as well as the scribe the court below found that there was no valid attestation under law there was also a challenge that the Detroit Court Christian was doesn't say that this man is entitled to execute a bill because he is prohibited or prohibited therefore that bill cannot be executed except but the Honorable Supreme Court held that this man is a senior counselor he knows the law he was also aware that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court with regard to the challenge that the Thravanthpur Act the matter may go anyway therefore if it goes against the normal in written he doesn't want to give the property to his daughter and therefore conscious of the fact that the matter challenging the Thravanthpur Act pending before the Supreme Court so either way he has executed the bill in favor of his son for which a probate has been called law dissenating his daughter the court on two accords the junior lawyer even though it has been cited as a scribe can very well attest the document or can be an attesting witness for a court of law that his intention is to attest the document as well now coming to this section 68 and then I will wind up of the evidence act where do the section 63 of the Indian success in that in case of a document which requires compulsory attestation a document has to be proved if it is under challenge by examining at least one attesting witness this one attesting witness who can be examined or minimum one attesting witness has to be examined but the rigor of this mandatory provision is somewhat watered down by the provisor which says that provided it shall not be necessary to call on witness not in case of a will if the executant has admitted the document which has a document which is registered and the execution has been admitted there are two things under section 68 of the evidence act 63 of the Indian success more or less the same one a document which requires compulsory attestation then compulsory attestation is in respect of a will also coming covered under section 63 of the succession act of course a mortgage as well as a gift in all three cases one has to at least examine one attesting witness provided he is capable of giving evidence before the court if the attesting witness are not alive are not capable of giving evidence then the rigor is somewhat watered down under section 67 69 and 70 but it says that somebody who is acquainted with the signature of the executant and attestor can be examined this has been succinctly pointed out by the honourable supreme court in bheni chand verses kamala bheni chand verses kamala aia 1977 supreme court page 63 aia 1977 supreme court page 63 but in the court as hill the signing of a document to signify that the attestor to witness to the document attesting witness is one who signs the document in the presence of the executor after seeing the execution of the document or after receiving the acknowledgement that the executor had signed the document but the is also very important it says if the document is a registered document then if it is admitted in the proceedings there is no need to examine an attestor witness this will apply in case of a mortgage it will apply in case of a gift but it will not apply in case of a will the law gives an exception to the will the reason is the will will come into play after the demise of the attestor it is not enough to prove that the executor has signed the document and the formalities have been fulfilled apart from the rigor of section 68 with regard to examining and attesting witness the law mandates that in case of a will the sound disposing state of mind of the attestor has to be proved that is an additional component in the case of a will therefore the framers in 1872 thought it fit even if it is admitted about the execution by a person who may not be the executor it is not enough you have to prove additionally by examining and attesting witness in case of a will do remember that this exception that if it is admitted the witness cannot be examined will apply only in case of a document which is registered under the registration act suppose a will an unregistered will is projected is also subject to prove will be valid in the eyes of law then this rigor of probably so will not apply because it is not a registered document on two counts therefore there is an exception to the main provision of the admitted document one is in case of a will because the will requires a proof of a sound disposing state of mind two there may be a possibility that the will may be unregistered document in such a case coming to is there any difference between a gift and a settlement many cases under many of the jurisdiction of the states there is a confusion with regard to gift and settlement a settlement is also equated with a gift but the settlement has not been defined anywhere in the act except the stamp act as well as in the specific relief act stamp act speaks about the settlement executed within the members of the family in the specific relief act also a settlement has been defined which can be enforced in a court of law if a settlement is executed with a father in favor of one of his kids son or a daughter does it require attestation does it require a rigor of proof under section 68 the larger issue is which has never been considered by any of the courts except in a case reported from karmataka in AII 2002 if I remember correctly is large ship came to the conclusion that there is a difference fundamental difference between a gift and a settlement transfer of property act section 122 speaks about the gift it does not speak about the settlement in case of a gift it says that it has to be attested once it is to be attested it will be by way of 2% but settlement has been defined only in the specific relief act which is a hybrid of the procedure as well as a substantive law and a stamp act which is only a procedure therefore taking into consideration what the large ship bug has said in 2002 that in case of a settlement if it is more of a family arrangement to adjust between the members of the family and therefore such a document does not even require an attestation if a document does not require an attestation then the document can be proved as though it is not attested that is section 72 of the evidence act an attested document not required by law to be attested may be proved as if it was attested therefore in case of a settlement which is more of a family arrangement between the members of the family to adjust the properties it is not a gift in the real sense if it is not a gift in the real sense then it does not require an attestation even though a gift requires an attestation under section 12 the point for consideration therefore is to find out whether it is a gift or a settlement you may ask me one question then what is a gift gift is transfer of property by person without conservation it may be for love and affection but this transfer may be to anybody but a settlement in the larger interest of the family by grandfather to the grandson or father to the son mother to the son mother to the daughter father to the daughter etc the family has been defined under this stamp act if it is done within the family I think the judgment of the Kannada High Court reported in 2002 by Slatship Bhat is correct but I am afraid that this has not been seriously discussed by any of the High Courts or even the Supreme Court in many of the cases before the High Court at Madras or even Andhra Pradesh or Nagarashtra I have come across cases where the court said that if it is a settlement it is nothing but a gift therefore it requires attestation probably it has not been argued before a court to take a decision otherwise I think it is the opening for the I lay before this forum to discuss the issue can there be a difference between a gift and a settlement and if there is a difference can is there any need for an attestive witness in case of a settlement need if it does not require settlement and even if it is attested can it be proved under section 72 of the evidence act as though it has not been attested section 70 is also relevant in the evidence act the admission of a party to attest a document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him as against him as though it be a document required by law to be attested this in all probability will apply in cases of a mortgage or a gift not in case of a will because the executant will not be arrived to admit but what it says if a gift deal is executed by a person and the admission made by the executant is sufficient proof against him for her therefore if another party challenges the document then you have to I will give you one example suppose mother executed document in favor of one of his son both mother and death the son who is a beneficiary have been added as a party as a defendant another son or a daughter files a suit challenging the settlement itself in favor of son by the mother mother comes to the court and admit it can the defendants take advantage of this section 70 and say that mother has executed the document and she has admitted the same and therefore there is no need to prove the document I am afraid it is not a correct proposition of law what the law says if it is admitted by the executant it will be a sufficient proof against the executant therefore it will be admittedly need to prove the document against the executant but in the case on an example I have given one of the son challenged in the settlement therefore once it has been challenged and if you want to prove this gifted here against the person or the plaintiff then not understanding the fact that mother has admitted the written statement or the replica reply that she has executed this document still law requires that you have to comply with the section 68 of the unless an entity is proved then it cannot be taken into evidence at all therefore the overall picture of her the attestation is this a scribe can be an attestor the attesting witness can be a relative even though he may be an interested person in many a case you can't go and fetch completely a new person unknown person the court may not believe in many a case that a person who is closely associated can only be an attesting witness who is not close to the executor or knows the executor his evidence cannot be discreet a blind man can be an attestor witness in case of an illiterate person who execute the document then the burden is upon the person to show that the illiterate person has signed the document more so in case of Paragana Singh the overall picture of the execution and the attestation of the document I leave this for today with the larger question whether the gift executed on the section 122 of the concept of property whether it is owner or not and a settlement deed executed among the members of the family if it is in the larger interest to settle the issue among the members of the family or one and the same whether it requires an attesting witness to prove the document or whether it requires an attesting witness at all because a sale deed does not require an attestation the law speaks about an attestation only in respect of 3 documents the law transfer of property act doesn't even speak about settlement more colloquially used by the persons in the official accounts but it has to find a way in this time as well as the definition of the specific gift thank you for this Mr. Prabhakar the first question what happens to the POI holder transfers the property in his own name after the death of the principal without giving any conservation obviously the transfer after the death of the principal is void but the transfer after the termination under section 2 1, 2 of the contract act is valid unless it is brought to the notice of the power of attorney as well as it is exchanged but this will not apply to the death of a principal if the principal is no more then the document is unenforcable second question can there be a delivery of question of the removal property based on notarized documents yes of course even in case of an agreement of sale possession can be delivered but what type of possession it would be you cannot use this possession under section 23a or the transfer of property to protect your interests but the possession can be protected so long as the true owner comes into picture and if the true owner comes into picture and he can very well get rid of it unless your possession is protected under law under law a mere possession without the transfer of interest will be protected only under section 23a of the transfer of property act if the ingredients are fulfilled namely you are ready and willing to perform the remaining part of the contract you have been put in possession of the property and you are ready to pay the balance consideration etc and you have done something in favourance of the contract these are the ingredients plus after act 48 of 2001 the document must be registered third can sell the property to himself not possible can a person I think it is a person can a person sell the property to himself it is not possible but power of attorney representing the principal who is the owner can transfer the property to himself because a power of attorney acting as a power of attorney and transferring to himself are two different independent person under law two different person therefore it is possible but a person transferring to himself is not possible can power of attorney sell the property himself that was the question in fact I have answered power of attorney can transfer the property to himself there is absolutely no part in continuation of the previous question can an immovable property be transferred in the name of a PIA PIA owner without the executant being present physically because it was done after the executant at night once the executant is died the transfer is void therefore there is no question of this document coming into play even if it is executed without knowing the death of the principal the document is unenforceable in the eyes of law these are the only questions there is one question I will come there somebody has given from Gujarat I knew in this field my mother though in Gujarati and sometimes it becomes hard for me to communicate in English we do a session on legal English in Gujarati I am not an English professor probably it has been targeted to friends because they believe that you can share everything that's your beauty so thank you Mr. Prataka for sharing your knowledge and we will be in touch with you for your insights as usual thank you everyone stay blessed