Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 445
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Basant Balaji, J.
Mr. Barath – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Its Secretary, Department Of Registration – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 8199 OF 2025
Decided On : 10-03-2026
For the Petitioner: Smt.S.Lakshmy, Smt.Merin Monachan
For the Respondent: Sri.Millu Dandapani, Gp Sri. K.M Faisal
Foreign passports suffice as ID for NRIs/foreign nationals to register inherited property transfers under Rule 72A Registration Rules.
Headnote:The Registration Act, 1908 (Sections 17(g), Rule 72A of Registration Rules) and Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (Section 6(5), FEMA Regulations 2000 - Regulations 4(b), 4(c)) govern transfer of inherited immovable property by non-residents of Indian origin. Petitioners, Singapore citizens of Indian origin, inherited property from mother who acquired it as Indian resident via partition deed. Authorities refused registration of sale deed executed via power of attorney due to lack of Indian ID proofs. Court held foreign passports constitute trustworthy evidence under Rule 72 read with Rule 72A, allowing registration without personal presence. Issue: Whether Singapore citizens without OCI/Indian ID can register property transfer using foreign passport under Rule 72A. Ratio: Rule 72A is procedural guideline to Rule 72 requiring trustworthy identification; foreign nationals may use attested passports (relied on Manu C Jacob v. Sub Registrar [2019 (2) KLT 884]; Cheryl Ann Joy v. Sub Registrar [2018 (3) KLT 806]). No bar under FEMA for inherited property transfer. Writ petition allowed; Ext.P14 quashed; directed registration of sale deed and power of attorney using Singapore passports within two weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inheritance of property by singapore citizens from indian-origin mother. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenge to refusal of property registration. (Para 4) |
| 3. fema permits transfer of inherited property by non-residents. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
Basant Balaji, J.
Petitioners’ mother, late Geetha Premraj @ Geetha inherited property having an extent 56.2266 cents in Sy.No.582/5 in Perumkadavila village, Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram with right of way over the pathway on the western side with all easement and other rights appurtenant thereto as per partition deed No.429/1987 of SRO Neyyattinkara. Petitioners’ mother was an Indian citizen at the time of execution of partition deed and held an Indian passport. Ext.P2 is the copy of partition deed and Ext.P3 is photocopy of passport No.C870236. Petitioners’ parents were settled in Singapore and petitioners are born in Singapore. Ext.Nos.P7 and P8 are the passports issued to the petitioners by the Republic of Singapore. They are not having the overseas citizen of India Card and is not in possession of any identification issued by the Government of India.
2. Petitioners’ father Mr Bhaskaran Premraj passed away on 10.10.2010 leaving behind the petitioners’ mother late Geetha Premraj and the petitioners. Petitioners’ mother, while on a visit to India, passed away on 28.5.2016 at Thiruvananthpauram and Ext.P10 is the death certificate. Petitioners approached the Family court of Republic of Singapore for granting letters of administration and the same is issued as per Ext.P11 on 11.7.2016. Thus, upon the demise of petitioners’ mother, the petitioners have inherited the property having an extent of 56.2266 cents. Petitioners have effected mutation and remitted land tax evidenced by Ext.P12. The petitioners do not have an intention to return to India and are permanently residing in Singapore. Therefore, they have appointed their mother’s sister as their power of attorney to dispose of the property, which they have inherited in India, to their cousins one Mr. Manu Sugathan and Mr. Pappu S, who are citizens as well as permanent residents of India.
3. While attempting for a slot for registration of the sale deed and for obtaining e-stamp, they could not complete the process as the site required a valid identify proof issued by the Government of India and on enquiry with the 4th respondent, it was revealed that since they are neither OCI card holders and do not possess any Indian identification proofs, they cannot transfer the property.
4. A representation was preferred by the petitioners through the power of attorney holder to the 1st respondent as Ext.P13. But the same was replied to by Ext.P14 stating that at the time of registration, as mandated under Rule 72A of the Registration Rules, they have to produce the documents mentioned therein. Moreover, they will have to pay stamp duty for the power of attorney as the same is a compulsory registerable document under Section 17 (g) of the Registration Act. It is also clarified that they will have to comply with the directions issued by Central Government as well as the RBI in this regard. Petitioners challenge Ext.P14 in this Writ Petition as it is illegal and against the guidelines issued by the RBI and the Government of India and prayed for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P14 order of the third respondent and quash the same.
ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the fourth respondent to accept the sale deed executed by the petitioners in respect of 20.60 Ares in Survey No. 582/5, situated in Perumkadavila Thiruvananthapuram District and register the same.
iii. To dispense with the production of the translation of vernacular documents.
iv. Issue such other appropriate writ order or direction that may be deemed fit to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. H
