BHAVANA RAJESH PILLAI Vs. SUB COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Power of Attorney duly executed by the father of the petitioner and authenticated by the Assistant Consular Officer, Embassy of India, Muscat was presented before the respondent for adjudication as to proper stamp under Section 31 of the Stamp Act, 1959. By Ext.P2 order, the respondent rejected the application for adjudication on the ground that the instrument is not signed by any witness. The above order is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner's father is employed in Muscat. He wanted to sell his share in an item of property owned by him and situate within the jurisdictional limits of the respondent. Sri. Rajesh presented himself before the Assistant Consular Officer, Embassy of Muscat, who authenticated and attested the power of attorney with the help of Indian Passport No.K0796105 issued on 4.3.2012. Ext.P1 Power of Attorney would show that it is executed on an Indian Non-judicial Stamp paper of Rs.600/-value.

(3.) Sri. B. Pramod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no requirement under law that a Power of Attorney should be attested by witnesses. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P1 Power of Attorney is engrossed on an Indian Non-Judicial Stamp Paper worth Rs. 600/- and going by Article 44(1) (g) of the Kerala Stamp Act, the amount payable by way of stamp is Rs. 600/-. In view of Section 32 of the Stamp Act, 1959, the Collector ought to have determined that the instrument is already fully stamped and he should have made proper certification that the full duty of Rs.600/- with which it is chargeable has been paid. He would also contend that there is a presumption of genuineness under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 if the power of attorney is executed before an Indian Consul in a foreign country.