LexStreakRead free →
Madras High Court· 27 July 2026

Can a registered power of attorney be charged with stamp duty as a conveyance under the Stamp Act, 1899?

The Sub Registrar v. M. Noor Mohamed
2026:MHC:3151 · WA(MD) No. 1087 of 2026
Coram: Justice C.V.Karthikeyan · Justice R.Sakthivel
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.33A Stamp Act, 1899📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. The power of attorney is only an authority granted to convey the property, while the sale deed is the document which actually conveys it; if the power of attorney were charged as a document of conveyance there would be collection of stamp duty and registration charges twice over for the very same property, which is impermissible since there is no two conveyances of the property. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act defines sale as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price, and sale takes place only when possession is handed over and when consideration for the value of the property is paid.

Headnote

Stamp Act, 1899 — s.33A — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.54 — Power of attorney — Conveyance — Deficit stamp duty — Limitation — Functus officio — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.54 — Power of attorney — Not to be charged as a conveyance — Held: A power of attorney is only an authority granted to convey the property; charging it as a conveyance would collect stamp duty twice over. (¶6) Stamp Act, 1899 — s.33A — Second proviso — Embargo after three years from registration — Held further: A notice of deficit stamp duty issued beyond three years from the date of registration is void, the second proviso being couched in negative language. (¶9) Stamp Act, 1899 — s.33A — First proviso — Sub Registrar functus officio after registration — Held further: Upon registration the Sub Registrar becomes functus officio and must forward the papers to the District Registrar. Writ appeal dismissed. (¶9)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 6It is contended that the appellant had interpreted that the power had been granted with consideration and therefore, it is contented that by the very power, conveyance has been effected to the respondent herein. We hold that the said interpretation does not stand scrutiny, since the agent /the respondent will thereafter, on the authority granted under the power, will have to convey each one of the plots which he had been authorised to convey to the individual purchasers and on those documents, the appellant has a right to charge stamp duty and registration charges as a document of conveyance. If this power of attorney is permitted to be charged as a document of conveyance, then for the very same property there would be collection of stamp duty and registration charges twice over, which are impermissible since there is no two conveyances of the property. The power of attorney is only an authority granted to convey the property. The sale deed is the document which actually conveys the property.
Paragraph 8Sale takes place only when possession is handed over, only when consideration for the value of the property is paid. Immediately on execution of the document, it becomes an executed document, not an executory document. Therefore, the reasoning of the District Registrar on the ground that the power of attorney should be charged as a conveyance has to be set aside.
Acts & Sections
s.33A Stamp Act, 1899s.54 Transfer of Property Act, 1882

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of The Sub Registrar v. M. Noor Mohamed — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Can a notice of deficit stamp duty under Section 33A of the Stamp Act, 1899 be issued beyond three years from registration?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections