Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2679
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, J.
A.V.Manaf, S/o. Abdul Rahiman Hajiyar – Appellant
Versus
Dr. P. Reghusankar, S/o. Late Sivasankaran – Respondent
OP(C) Nos. 1589 of 2025 & 1066 of 2024
Decided on : 29-09-2025
For the Appellant : SMT.R.RANJANIE, SMT.MEERA M., SMT.SELVA JYOTHY A., SRI.P.MOHAMMED ANZARI, SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN (SR.)
The court affirmed that compounding documents require compliance with stamp duty regulations, and amendment applications must be addressed alongside pending permission to contest personally under the Civil Procedure Code.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 - Sections 33, 37(2), and 39(b) - Interlocutory applications regarding impounding and acceptance of Power of Attorney - The plaintiff contested the order impounding the initial Power of Attorney for non-registration and stamp duty. The court ruled that impounded documents require payment of duty and cannot be replaced without court permission. (Paras 7, 20, 24)
(B) Civil Procedure Code - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of pleadings - The court held that amendments and applications for personal contesting must be considered together; allowing one in the absence of the other is unsustainable. (Paras 21, 23)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed suit for partition via Power of Attorney while contesting its validity, leading to application filings concerning stamp duty and representation decisions.
Findings of Court:
The trial court correctly impounded the Power of Attorney and dismissed the plaintiff's amendment request; the plaintiff must pay due penalties.
Issues: Interference with impoundment orders and legitimacy of amendment application amidst pending contest requests.
Ratio Decidendi: Power of Attorney impounding necessitates stamp duty compliance; without clear court directive, reverting to personal representation is inadmissible, necessitating thorough examination of related applications together.
Result: O.P No.1066/2024 dismissed; O.P No.1589/2025 allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inclusion of power of attorney in partition suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. impoundment of non-registered power of attorney. (Para 6 , 8 , 19) |
| 3. pending applications and their impacts. (Para 9 , 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 4. restrictions on withdrawing power of attorney. (Para 18 , 22) |
| 5. final order dismissing op and setting aside amendment. (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
K. NATARAJAN, J.
This original petition 1066/2024 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking to set aside the orders passed on I.A. No. 7/2021 and I.A No.8/2019 in O.S. No. 41/2019, by the Additional Sub Judge, Palakkad.
2. The original petition 1589/2025 filed by the petitioner/defendant seeking to set aside the order passed by the Additional Sub Judge, Palakkad, on I.A No.950/2021 on the application filed by the plaintiff by allowing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC filed by the plaintiff.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent, who is also the petitioner in O.P (C) No.1589/2025.
4. For convenience, the petitioner in OP(C) NO.1066/2024 is hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, and the petitioner in O.P.(C) No. 1589/2025, is referred to as the defendant.
5. The plaintiff herein has filed a suit for partition against the defendant in OS No.41 / 2019 through his Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Jayaprakash. It is contended that the plaintiff is currently residing in abroad and is unable to prosecute the matter, hence instituted the suit through his friend and Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Jayaprakash.
6. After the appearance of the defendant, an application was filed by the defendant seeking to impound the Power of Attorney produced by the plaintiff through his Power of Attorney holder, Mr. Jayaprakash. Ext.P2 is the Power of Attorney. It was alleged that Ext.P2, Power of Attorney, was not a registered document. The Power of Attorney conferred the power on the Attorney holder to sell the scheduled property. Therefore, it was contended that the petitioner was liable to pay the requisite stamp duty and penalty on the Power of Attorney document, and accordingly, the defendant prayed for impounding the said document.
7. After hearing the arguments, the trial court, by order dated 16.12.2023, allowed I.A No.7/2021 filed by the respondent /defendant. By the said order, the trial court, impounded the Power of Attorney under section 33 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and directed the District Collector to collect the appropriate stamp duty and penalty as per sections 37 (2) and 39 (b) of the Act.
8. It is the further case of the petitioner/plaintiff that, prior to the passing of the order dated 16.12.2023, he has filed an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking return of the earlier Power of Attorney, which is produced as Ext. P2 and permission to produce a fresh Power of Attorney, which is produced as Ext. P5. The trial court dismissed the application on 16.12.2023 on the ground that the said court had already passed an order impounding the earlier Power of Attorney. Consequently, the subsequent application was rejected on that ground. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the plaintiff has filed the original petition O.P(C) No.1066 of 2024 for setting aside the order for impounding the Power of Attorney passed by the trial court, as well as to set aside the order dismissing I.A No.8/2021, and to permit the petitioner to contest the matter.
9. The case of the respondent/ defendant (who is the petitioner) in O.P(C) 1589/2025 is that, the trial court vide order dated 16.12.2023 on I.A No.7/2021 impounded the Power of Attorney produced by Mr. Jayaprakash and referred the document to the District Collector for the purpose of imposing appropriate stamp duty and penalty. In meanwhile, the plaintiff himself filed two interlocutory applications; one is for seeking permission to contest the case by himself by discharging the Power of Attorney holder, which is
