Whether principal can ratify previous act done by agent by executing second power of attorney?

That an act done, for another, by a person though without any precedent authority whatever, becomes the act of the principal, subsequently ratified by him, is the known and well-established rule of law. In that case the principal is bound by the act, whether it be for the detriment or his advantage, and whether it be founded on a tort or on a contract, to the same effect as by, and with all the consequences which follow from, the same act done by his previous authority. And so by a wholesome and convenient fiction, a person ratifying the act of another, who, without authority, has made a contract openly and avowedly on his behalf, is deemed to be, in fact he was not, a party to the contract.

Relation back of an act of ratification was expressly accepted in this case. Other cases have been summarised in the manual of the Law and Practice of Powers of Attorney issued by the Council of the Chartered Institute of Secretaries; This follows from the maxim of law "Canis ratihabitio retrotrahitur at mandate priori aequiparatur"--that is to say, ratification is thrown back to the date of the act done, and the agent is put in the same position as if he had authority to do the act at the time the act was done by him. The learned authors quote the case of the House of Lords which we have above cited and add to it certain other cases with which we do not consider necessary to encumber this judgment.

9. It therefore follows that the second power of attorney was a valid document and it authorised Mr. Chawla to execute the document as well as to present it for registration. This being a document ratifying a former inconclusive act related back to the time when the first document was made and cured the illegality in the presentation for registration which had taken place.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 198 of 1967

Decided On: 16.03.1970

Jugraj Singh Vs. Jaswant Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M. Hidayatullah, C.J., A.N. Ray and I.D. Dua, JJ.

Citation: UJ 1971 (SC) 197

Print Page

Whether the principal can ratify the first power of attorney by executing the second power of attorney authenticated adequately by Notary public?

The first power of attorney was not authenticated as required by s; 33 of the Indian Registration Act which in the case of an Indian residing abroad,requires that the document should be authenticated by a Notary Public. The document only bore the signature of a witness without anything to show that he was a Notary Public. In any event there was no authentication by the Notary Public (if he was one) in the manner which the law would consider adequate. The second power of attorney however did show that it was executed before a proper Notary Public who complied with the laws of California and authenticated the document as required by that law, and was also duly authenticated in accordance with our laws. The only complaint was that the Notary Public did not say in his endorsement that V had been identified to his satisfaction. But that flows from the fact that he endorsed on the document that it had been subscribed and sworn before him. There is a presumption of regularity of official acts and he must have satisfied himself in the discharge of his duties that the person who was executing it was the proper person. This made the second power of attorney valid and effective both under s. 85 of the Indian Evidence Act and s. 33 of the Indian Registration Act. 

The second power of attorney was a valid document and it authorised S to execute the document as well as to present it for registration. This being a document ratifying a former inconclusive act related back to the time when the first document was made and cured the illegality in the presentation for registration which had taken place.

Now the law is quite clear that ratification relates back to the original act provided there is a disclosed principal. 

Supreme Court of India

Jugraj Singh & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Ors on 16 March, 1970

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M. Hidayatullah, C.J., A.N. Ray and I.D. Dua, JJ.

Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 761, 1971 SCR (1) 38,MANU/SC/0413/1970

Print Page