Ravindran v. State of Kerala

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM MONDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 317 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER:** RAVINDRAN AGED 67 YEARS S/O RAGHAVAN AMBADAN, AMBADAN HOUSE, ENAMAKKAL P.O., IRIMPRANELLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680510 BY ADVS. THAREEK T.S. RASHEEK AHAMED B.A. ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, THRISSUR CITY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680020 3 SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, MULLASSERY, VENKITANGU P.O THRISSUR, PIN - 680510 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR.GP - DEEPA NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **W.P.(C).No.317 of 2024 2** ## **VIJU ABRAHAM,J** **------------------W.P.(C).No.317 of 2024 --------------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of February, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 to the extent it denied registration of Ext.P6 partition deed presented by the petitioner before the 3[rd] respondent and for a consequential direction to the 3[rd] respondent to accept Exts.P2 and P3 instruments of Power of Attorney for the registration of Ext.P6 partition deed and register Ext.P6 partition deed, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. Petitioner is one of the co-owners in possession of the landed property ad-measuring a total extent of 4.05 Ares comprised in Survey No.42 of Irimbranallur Amsom Desom, Irimbranallur Village, Chavakkad Taluk by way of succession. Originally the said property was in the ownership and possession of the father of the petitioner, who obtained kudikidappu rights as per Ext.P1 kudikidappu certificate bearing No.O.A.2648/70 of ## **W.P.(C).No.317 of 2024 3** Land Tribunal Chavakkad. One of the co-owners of the property, Sunita Viswananthan executed Ext.P2 instrument of power of attorney on 12.07.2023 in white paper in favour of the petitioner in the presence of the Consulate General of India, Dubai, UAE and the said instrument of power of attorney has been duly attested by the Consulate General of India, Dubai, UAE on the same date for the purpose of objects including partition of the above said property. Likewise, another co-owner of the property, Vishal Viswananthan also executed Ext.P3 instrument of power of attorney on 12.07.2023 in white paper in favour of the petitioner in the presence of the Consulate General of India, Dubai, UAE and the said instrument of power of attorney duly attested by the Consulate General of India, Dubai, UAE on the same day for the purpose of objects including partition of the above said property. The petitioner presented the said power of attorney before the office of the 2[nd] respondent for adjudication and remitted deficit Stamp Duty of Rs.42,256/-, as is evident from Exts.P4 and P5. ## **W.P.(C).No.317 of 2024 4** Thereafter, the co-owners decided to execute a partition deed and Ext.P6 partition deed was prepared and presented the same for registration before the 3[rd] respondent after taking token No.T 7605704. Thereupon, the 3[rd] respondent issued Ext.P7 letter directing the petitioner to register Exts.P2 and P3 instruments of Power of attorney again which has already been registered in the presence of the Consulate General of India, Dubai, UAE and present Exts.P2 and P3 instruments of power of attorney again for the registration of Ext.P6 deed stating the reason that Exts.P2 and P3 instruments of power of attorney is not seen to be registered under law. Petitioner relying on Section 33 of the Registration Act 1908 submits that Exts.P2 and P3 are power of attorney recognized for the purpose of Section 32. Petitioner further relying on Section 32 of the Registration Act 1908 would submit that if the principal at the time aforesaid does not reside in India, a power of attorney executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, or any Court, ## **W.P.(C).No.317 of 2024 5** Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consular, Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government is a recognizable power of attorney for the purpose of Section 32. Based on the above said provision petitioner would submit that Exts.P2 and P3 which were executed before the Consulate General of India and later on adjudicated by paying the requisite stamp duty, as is evident from Exts.P4 and P5 are valid power of attorney and that on the basis of Exts.P2 and P3, Ext.P6 partition deed should be directed to be registered without undergoing the procedure of registering the said Exts.P2 and P3 again as directed in Ext.P7. Petitioner relies on the judgment in **Amose v. Sub Registrar, Meenachil (2021 (1) KHC 289)** , wherein this Court has considered identical situation and directed registration of the document based on the similarly registered power of attorney. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader also. 4. Admittedly, Exts.P2 and P3 power of attorneys were duly registered before the Consulate General ## **W.P.(C).No.317 of 2024 6** of India, Dubai, UAE and those power of attorneys were adjudicated by remitting deficit stamp duty as is evident from Exts.P4 and P5. Section 32 of the Registration Act, 1908 mandates that a document could be registered on the strength of a power of attorney executed and authenticated and going by Section 33 of the Registration Act, a power of attorney which is registered before the Indian Consular/Vice Consular is also a recognizable power of attorney for the purpose of Section 32 of the Registration Act, 1908. 5. This Court while considering a similar matter in **Amose's** case cited supra, after referring to Sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act held that since the power of attorney has been authenticated by the embassy of India in Kuwait, it eminently satisfies the requirement under the Act and the same is recognizable for the purpose of Section 32. In the present case, there can be no objection that the document is insufficiently stamped in as much as going by Exts.P4 and P5, the documents were ## **W.P.(C).No.317 of 2024 7** presented before the 2[nd] respondent for adjudication and deficit stamp duty was also remitted. In view of the same, I am of the view that the 3[rd] respondent is liable to accept Exts.P2 and P3 instruments of power of attorney for registration of Ext.P6 partition deed and register the same without any delay. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I am inclined to issue a direction to the 3[rd] respondent to accept Exts.P2 and P3 instruments of power of attorney for the registration of Ext.P6 partition deed and register the same as soon as it is presented before the 3[rd] respondent for registration, if the same is otherwise in order. To facilitate the registration as directed above, the direction in Ext.P7 to get Exts.P2 and P3 registered, will stand set aside. sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE** pm **W.P.(C).No.317 of 2024 8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 317/2024** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE KUDIKIDAPPU CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.O.A.2648/70 OF LAND TRIBUNAL OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD ISSUED IN FAVOR OF THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER, DATED 02.05.1990 - Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY SUNITHA VISWANATHAN IN FAVOR OF RAVINDRAN (PETITIONER) AND DULY ATTESTED BY CONSULATE GENERAL OF INDIA, DUBAI, UAE, DATED 12.07.2023 - Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY VISHAL VISWANATHAN IN FAVOR OF RAVINDRAN (PETITIONER) AND DULY ATTESTED BY CONSULATE GENERAL OF INDIA, DUBAI, UAE DATED 12.07.2023 - Exhibit P4 A TRUECOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CERTIFYING THAT THE DEFICIT STAMP DUTY WHICH SAID INSTRUMENT OF EXT.P2 POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY SUNITA VISWANATHAN IS CHARGEABLE HAS BEEN REMITTED DATED 02.11.2023 - Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CERTIFYING THAT THE DEFICIT STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF EXT.P3INSTRUMENT OF POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY VISHAL VISHWANATHAN IS CHARGEABLE HAS BEEN REMITTED, DATED 02.11.2023 - Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED PRESENTED BY RAVINDRAN BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT, FOR REGISTRATION DATED 21.11.2023 - Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO REGISTER AGAIN THE EX.P2 AND EXT.P3 INSTRUMENTS OF POWER OF ATTORNEY