MARY Vs. SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri. Brijith, the brother-in-law of the petitioner herein, is a Canadian citizen. His father died intestate living behind various items of properties. Brijith decided to relinquish his rights in favour of the other legal heirs and, to effectuate his desire, executed a power of attorney authorising the petitioner to execute a release deed. The notarized power of attorney was attested by the Vice-Consul, Consulate General of India, Toronto.

(2.) The Power of Attorney was presented before the 2nd respondent for adjudication under Chapter III of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The 2nd respondent, exercising power under Section 32(1)(b) of the Stamp Act, directed the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.17,440/- being the amount chargeable under Schedule 1 Article 44 (f) of the Stamp Act . The petitioner duly remitted the amount, and the 2nd respondent made the endorsement in the document.

(3.) As per Section 17 (g) of the Registration Act , 1908, a Power of attorney which creates any power or right of management, administration, development, transfer or any other transaction relating to immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards other than those executed in favour of father, mother, wife, husband, son, adopted son, daughter, adopted daughter, brother, sister, son-in-law or daughter-in-law of the executant is compulsorily registrable. The power of attorney executed by Brigit fits this criteria and hence the same was presented before the 1st respondent for registration. He contends that the 1st respondent refused to register the document and demanded the petitioner to pay additional amounts towards stamp duty. He also states that one of the reasons for non-registration was the fact that the same was executed overseas. It is contended that neither of the reasons offered by the respondent is sustainable. According to the petitioner, the power of attorney having been adjudicated by the 2nd respondent under Chapter III of the Stamp Act, 1959, the 1st respondent could not have insisted upon the petitioner to pay any further amount either towards stamp or towards registration fees.