Power of Attorney in India: What It Can and Cannot Do With Property

A Power of Attorney lets one person, the agent, act legally on behalf of another, the principal, within whatever scope the document sets out. For property specifically, it is a genuinely useful tool for someone who cannot be physically present to sign documents, appear before a registrar, or manage a rented property day to day. It is also, historically, one of the most misused documents in Indian property transactions, and the Supreme Court has now twice made clear exactly why.

What a POA is actually for

A properly drafted Power of Attorney authorises specific acts: managing a rented-out property, collecting rent, paying property tax and utility bills, representing the principal before government authorities, or executing documents on the principal's behalf for a transaction the principal has already substantively agreed to. This is the everyday, legitimate use of a POA, and it remains entirely valid and useful.

The document should specify exactly what the agent can do. A specific power of attorney limits the agent to named acts, such as signing one particular sale deed already negotiated by the principal. A general power of attorney grants much broader authority across a range of matters. The broader the grant, the more carefully the principal should trust the agent, since a GPA genuinely gives someone else the legal ability to act as if they were you across the matters it covers.

The arrangement the Supreme Court rejected

For decades, a specific combination of documents was widely used across India to transfer property informally, avoiding the stamp duty and registration that a proper sale deed requires: an Agreement to Sell, paired with a General Power of Attorney authorising the "buyer" to deal with the property as if they owned it, sometimes paired further with a Will. This came to be known informally as the SA/GPA/Will arrangement.

A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property.

Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd v. State of Haryana (2011)

The Supreme Court held plainly that this arrangement conveys no title whatsoever. The person holding an Agreement to Sell plus a GPA does not own the property. They hold a bundle of documents that lets them behave as though they own it, but the actual legal title never left the original owner, because title to immovable property can only pass through a properly executed and registered conveyance, which an Agreement to Sell and a GPA are not. The Court has reaffirmed this position twice more in 2025, so this is not an old ruling that has since softened; it remains firmly the law.

What the ruling explicitly does not touch

It is important to be precise about the scope of the Suraj Lamp ruling, because it is sometimes cited more broadly than it actually reaches. The judgment expressly preserves genuine powers of attorney granted for management, administration, or convenience purposes. A POA authorising someone to manage a rented flat, collect rent, or represent the owner before a housing society remains entirely valid. What the ruling rejects specifically is using a POA as a substitute for an actual conveyance of ownership.

Stamp duty on a POA depends heavily on what it authorises

This is where the practical financial consequence of the ruling actually lands. A POA granted to a close family member, without any consideration passing and not authorising a sale, typically attracts only nominal stamp duty in most states, often a few hundred rupees.

A POA authorising the agent to sell the property, particularly to a non-relative, or one where consideration genuinely passes, is treated by most states as equivalent to an actual conveyance and taxed at the full ad-valorem conveyance rate, commonly in the range of 5 to 7% of the property's circle-rate value. On an ₹80 lakh property, this is the difference between a few hundred rupees and several lakh.

If you're buying property, what to actually check

1. Ask directly whether the seller holds registered title in their own name, and ask to see the original registered sale deed by which they themselves acquired the property, not merely an Agreement to Sell or a GPA.
2. If someone is acting on the seller's behalf under a POA, verify the POA is genuine, currently valid, and check what it actually authorises. A POA that only permits property management does not authorise a sale.
3. Never treat an Agreement to Sell plus a GPA, however long-standing or however many people have relied on it, as equivalent to ownership. It is not, and the Suraj Lamp ruling means a court will treat it exactly that plainly if the question is ever litigated.