HEDRIN LAWRANCE PEREIRA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Government Pleader takes notice for respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is the Power of Attorney holder of one Dr.Ravintharan who is a permanent resident of Singapore. Ext.P1 Power of Attorney was executed for the purpose of selling the share of the Principal in property referred to in Ext.P1. The document was executed on 30/12/2020 and was adjudicated for stamp duty by the 2nd respondent. The adjudicated amount of Rs.2,99,344.00 was remitted in the Treasury on 3/5/2021 as evidenced by Ext.P3. The petitioner submits that during the Covid-19 pandemic, it was difficult to find a buyer for the property and the buyer came forward only recently and an agreement for sale was executed and later the sale deed was also drawn up. It is submitted that the sale deed was presented for registration before the 4th respondent on 20/6/2022, but the 4th respondent declined to register the sale deed for the reason that Ext.P1 Power of Attorney is not a registered document. The petitioner preferred Ext.P5 representation before the 3rd respondent contending that Ext.P1 is not compulsorily registrable and is covered under Sec. 33(1) of the Registration Act. It is submitted that the 4th respondent took a stand that even if the Power of Attorney is registered, the period prescribed under Sec. 26(b) of the Registration Act is over and registration is not possible. It is in the above circumstances, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition praying for a direction to call for the records leading to Ext.P6 and set aside the same and to declare that Ext.P1 Power of Attorney does not require registration. It is also prayed that there may be direction to the 4th respondent to accept Ext.P1 Power of Attorney for registration on presentation by the petitioner instead of by the executant personally and to declare that the period under Sec. 26(b) of the Registration Act stands excluded in view of Ext.P8 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India whereby relaxation was granted with respect to the period of limitation. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents reiterating the stand taken by the 4th respondent.

(3.) The 3rd respondent has contended that the petitioner is not a family member as defined under Sec. 17 (1)(g) of the Indian Registration Act and hence action rejecting the registration was correct in law. It is also submitted that since the Power of Attorney was prepared on 26/9/2018 and Sec. 17 had been amended with effect from 30/9/2013, the Power of Attorney is compulsorily registrable.