JUDGMENT Daniels, J.
1. The point raised in this appeal is a point of law under sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, but as the question appears to me to be quite free from doubt on the language of the Act, I propose to dispose of the appeal at once. The document, the presentation of which is challenged, was executed by Raghunath Das, the general agent of Ram Lal and of the widow of Ganpat Rai, on their behalf. The power-of-attorney which he held authorised him to execute documents on their behalf, and he executed the document under the terms of this power-of-attofney. He then presented it for registration at the Registration Office and it was registered. The plea taken by the appellant in this Court and in the Courts below was that, in order to enable him to present the document it was necessary that he should hold a power-of-attorney authenticated before the Sub-Registrar under the provisions of Section 33. A reference to Section 32 shows that a document may be presented for registration either under Clause (a) by a person actually executing it or by some one claiming under it, or it may be presented under Clause (c) by the agent of such persons duly authorised by a power of-attorney executed and authenticated in accordance with Section 33. The provisions of Section 33, therefore, clearly apply where the person presenting a document is the general attorney of the person executing it, and not where it is presented for registration by the actual executant, even though he may have executed it as agent for some one else. The person actually executing a document is entitled to present it for registration under Clause (a) of Section 32 without the necessity of any power-of-attorney. No doubt, an agent requires a power-of-attorney to empower him to execute a document on behalf of his principal, but when once the document has been executed he is, so far as the Registration Office is concerned, the actual executant of the document and is entitled under Section 32(a) to present it for registration and to get it registered. The appellant suggests that the case is altered by the fact that the power-of-attorney which Raghunath Das held gave him two authorities; first, an authority to execute documents on behalf of his principal, and, second, an authority empowering him to present documents for registration on behalf of his principal. This, in my opinion, does not affect the case, as in this case he acted under the first of the two powers. The learned Judge of the Court below has, in my opinion, properly appreciated and dealt with the point of law involved, and as his decision is, in my opinion, clearly right, I dismiss the appeal under Order XLI, Rule 11.