ANITHA RAJAN Vs. R D O THRISSUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner purchased a parcel of land, 50 cents in extent, situated in Re-Survey No. 166/1 of Nattika village, Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur district from the legal heirs of late Gangadharan as per the original of Ext.P3 sale deed dated 16.3.2009, registered as document No. 640 of 2009 of Sub Registrar's Office, Triprayar. The property conveyed to the petitioner as per Ext.P3 sale deed belonged to late Gangadharan. Ext.P3 saledeed was executed by his wife Smt. Rathnabhai and his children Sri. Ajayan, Smt. Jisha, Smt. Usha, Smt. Ajitha and Smt. Anitha. Sri. Ajayan, one of the vendors was employed in Dubai and Smt. Usha, another vendor was not residing in her home town. Sri. Ajayan had executed the originalof Ext.Pl power of attorney on 1.3.2009 on non-judicial stamp paper of the value of Rs. 150/- appointing his mother Smt. Rathnabhai as his power of attorney to execute a sale deed in respect of the lands conveyed to the petitioner. The original of Ext.P1 power of attorney was executed at Dubai in the presence of the Vice Counsel in the Indian Consulate at Dubai and is attested by him. Ext.P2, the power of attorney executed by Smt. Usha, is a power of attorney registered in the Sub Registrar's Office, Triprayar.

(2.) After Ext.P3 sale deed was executed, the petitioner moved the third respondent for effecting mutation in the revenue records. The third respondent thereupon sent Ext.P4 letter dated 8.9.2009 to the petitioner informing her that the original of Ext.P1 power of attorney executed at Dubai has to be produced before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur for adjudication and that if the power of attorney is produced before him after adjudication by the Revenue Divisional Officer, mutation in the revenue records will be effected. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P5 petition dated 6.10.2009 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur requesting him to condone the delay in producing Ext.P1 for adjudication and to certify that it is duly stamped. On that application, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur passed Ext.P6 order dated 19.10.2009 (wrongly mentioned as 19.10.2001) rejecting Ext.P5 application on the ground that it was not produced before her within the time limit of three months stipulated in Section 18(1) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P6 orders and seeks a direction to the first respondent to certify that Ext.P1 power of attorney is duly stamped. She also seeks a direction to the third respondent to pass orders on her application for effecting mutation in the revenue records in respect of the land conveyed to her by Ext.P3 sale deed.

(3.) The petitioner contends that it is not mandatory to produce every power of attorney executed out of India before the Revenue Divisional Officer and that only instruments executed out of India which are chargeable with duty but are not duly stamped, that require to be stamped within three months and that only such documents are required to be produced before the Collector for adjudication under Section 31 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The petitioner contends that the original of Ext.P1 power of attorney was produced before the Sub Registrar, Triprayar, the competent authority at the time when the original of Ext.P3 sale deed was registered and that as the sale deed was duly registered by the Sub Registrar and no objection was taken to stamp duty payable on Ext.P1 power of attorney, the Village Officer should have effected mutation in the revenue records without insisting on the petitioner producing the original of Ext.P1 power of attorney before the Revenue Divisional Officer for adjudication under Section 31 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959.