1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the stand of the 1st respondent in insisting that Ext.P1 notarized power of attorney executed by his brother in favour of the petitioner for effectuating sale of his brother's property should necessarily be authenticated by the Registrar or Sub-Registrar within whose district or sub district the principal resides as envisaged in clause (a) of Section 33(1) of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner is the brother of one C.P.Anand, who is now permanently residing at Mumbai. According to the averments in the Writ Petition (Civil), the petitioner’s brother is suffering from serious ailments and he wants to alienate his landed property in Kerala for meeting his medical needs and that since he is unable to travel to Kerala for the said purpose, he has executed Ext.P1 power of attorney attested before an authorized Notary Public, whereby the petitioner has been appointed as his brother’s power of attorney for execution of the sale deed for and on behalf of the petitioner’s brother and for presenting the sale deed for registration before the competent registration officials in the State of Kerala. The petitioner being the power of attorney for and on behalf of his brother as per Ext.P1 had approached the 1st respondent Sub Registrar, Thrithala, with draft sale deed as well as with Ext.P1 power of attorney for taking further steps for the execution and registration of the sale deed. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent has now intimated the petitioner as per the impugned Ext.P2 letter dated 22.9.2018 that, since Ext.P1 has not been authenticated by the notified registration official concerned as envisaged in Section 33 (1)(a) of the Registration Act, the same cannot be utilized by the petitioner as a power of attorney for presentation of the sale deed on behalf of the principal in terms of Section 32. Further, it is also stated in the impugned Ext.P2 proceedings that the stamp duty payable for a power of attorney is Rs.600/-, in terms of the amended provision contained in Article 44 (c) of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 as per the amendment effected as per the Kerala Finance Act, 2018 with effect form 1.04.2018. The impugned decision at Ext.P2 of the 1st respondent Sub Registrar, Thrithala reads as follows:

Any Other Language

2. The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

“(a) issue a writ of certiorari calling for records leading to the issuance of Ext P2 order and quash the same;

(b) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to accept Exhibit P1 and to direct the registration of the sale deed as and when presented by the Petitioner, executed and signed by him on behalf of his brother C.P. Anand, the executant, with regard to the property authorized by him in the Power of Attorney, Ext P-1.”

3. Heard Sri.Madhu Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. A.C. Vidhya, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. The matter in issue is no longer Respondent integara and is covered against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner as per the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment in the case in Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar and another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 782 = 2009(3) KLT 607 (SC). In that case, the plea was taken that the person, who claims to be the landlord did not have proper title to the property in as much as the sale deed in question in favour of the landlord was executed through his power of attorney concerned and that the said power of attorney was not authenticated by the Registrar of Sub Registrar concerned as envisaged in Clause (a) of Section 33 (1) of the Registration Act. Repelling the said contention, the Apex Court in the above said judgment in Rajni Tandon's case (supra) has held that where the sale deed is executed by the power of attorney and then presented