BIJIMON Vs. KERLA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is a subscriber of a chitty, applied for a loan of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents. He furnished 12.40 ares of property as collateral security for the same. The second respondent issued Ext.P1 order sanctioning the payment of loan. However the 3 rd respondent insisted the petitioner that he has to execute a fresh mortgage in respect of the property, as per Ext.P2 letter. Petitioner points out that his mother is having life interest in the property which is furnished as collateral security and therefore a power of attorney executed by the mother in favour of the petitioner was produced before the 3 rd respondent. But the 3 rd respondent insisted that the power of attorney has to be registered. Petitioner also points out that while according sanction for payment of loan in Ext.P1, one of the conditions stipulated is that spouse of the petitioner shall be a co-obligant in all mortgage proceedings. Petitioner challenges condition No.4 in Ext.P1 letter as well as the action of the 3 rd respondent in insisting registration of power of attorney.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that as per Section 17 (1) (g) of the Registration Act, 1908, it is not necessary to register a power of attorney when it is executed in favour of father/mother/wife/husband/son etc., and therefore the 3rd respondent does not have any authority to insist registration which is not required under the statute.

(3.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri K.A.Salil Narayanan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.