Important points:
Section 26 of the Registration Act, 1908, a document executed outside India which is required to be registered will have to be presented for registration within four months after its arrival in India and on such presentment and on payment of the proper fee, the Registrar is required to accept such document for registration

JUDGMENT :

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.

4. Being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) Appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that Ext.P1 power of attorney is proper and validly executed capable of being used by the petitioner for the purpose of registering Ext.P2 release deed.

(ii) Appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the 1st respondent to enable the petitioner to register Ext.P2 under the provisions of the Registration Act on the strength of Ext.P1 power of attorney executed in her favour.

5. The 1st respondent has filed a statement, wherein it is stated that the 1st respondent has objected to the acceptance of the power of attorney for the purpose of registering Ext.P2 release deed not on the ground that it is executed in Canada but for the reason that the petitioner refused to pay the registration fees as required under Section 78 of the Registration Act, 1908. According to the respondent, Chapter III of the Kerala Stamp Act deals with adjudication of an instrument and the same has nothing to do with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 which deals with registration of a document.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced.

7. Under Section 18 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, an instrument executed out of India, which is chargeable with duty will have to be stamped within three months after it has been first received in India. As contemplated under the said provision, the Power of Attorney has been produced before the 2nd respondent, who has been conferred with the powers of the Collector, and the stamp duty as required to be paid under Article 44(f) to the Schedule has been paid. There is no dispute with respect to the above fact.

8. By Exhibit P1 power of attorney, authority has been conferred to the petitioner to execute a release deed in favour of the other legal heirs and as it relates to im