SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27863

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
BHAVANA RAJESH PILLAI, – Appellant
Versus
THE SUB COLLECTOR/SUB DIVISIONAL MAAGISTRATE – Respondent


Advocates:
SRI.B.PRAMOD, SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH

JUDGMENT

2. The petitioner's father is employed in Muscat. He wanted to sell his share in an item of property owned by him and situate within the jurisdictional limits of the respondent. Sri. Rajesh presented himself before the Assistant Consular Officer, Embassy of Muscat, who authenticated and attested the power of attorney with the help of Indian Passport No.K0796105 issued on 4.3.2012. Ext.P1 Power of Attorney would show that it is executed on an Indian Non-judicial Stamp paper of Rs.600/-value.

3. Sri. B. Pramod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no requirement under law that a Power of Attorney should be attested by witnesses. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P1 Power of Attorney is engrossed on an Indian Non-Judicial Stamp Paper worth Rs. 600/- and going by Article 44(1) (g) of the Kerala Stamp Act, the amount payable by way of stamp is Rs. 600/-. In view of Section 32 of the Stamp Act, 1959, the Collector ought to have determined that the instrument is already fully stamped and he should have made proper certification that the full duty of Rs.600/- with which it is chargeable has been paid. He would also contend that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top