Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8820
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P, J
Powerlink Builders Pvt. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 17197 OF 2023
Avocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : ADVS. PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR AKASH S. GIRISH KUMAR M S DEVIKA JAYARAJ
For the Respondent: BY ADV SMT. PREETHA K K (SR GP)
Section 32A of the Registration Act mandates the affixing of photographs and fingerprints for the registration of documents, including those executed under an irrevocable power of attorney.
Headnote:
(A) Registration Act - Sections 32 and 32A - Writ petition seeking direction to register a sale deed without requiring owner's photograph and fingerprint - Court held that Section 32A mandates affixing of these identifiers for proper registration to avoid fraudulent transfers - The petitioner argued for an exception for irrevocable power of attorney, but the court found no ambiguity in the statute - The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Legal interpretation - The court emphasized that unless a statutory provision is ambiguous, it cannot be restricted by interpretative processes - Section 32A clearly requires compliance for all transfers of immovable property. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a builder, sought registration of a sale deed under a power of attorney, arguing that the requirement for the owner's photograph and fingerprint should not apply as the power of attorney was irrevocable. However, the court noted that previous rulings upheld the necessity of these identifiers.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the necessity of adhering to Section 32A of the Registration Act, emphasizing the importance of preventing fraudulent transactions.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the requirements of Section 32A apply to transactions executed under an irrevocable power of attorney.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 32A has a clear mandate that must be followed to ensure proper registration and prevent fraud, rejecting the argument for an exception.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
The writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner, on the strength of Ext.P2 power of attorney, without insisting on the affixture of the passport size photograph and the fingerprint of the person who had executed the aforesaid power of attorney in favour of the petitioner and for a declaration that in terms of Section 32A of the Registration Act , the passport size photograph and fingerprint of the person executing the document on the strength of the power of attorney alone are required to be affixed in the sale deed.
2. The petitioner is a builder who is holding Ext.P2 power of attorney executed by the owner of the properties. Ext.P2 has been executed as required under Ext.P1 Joint Development Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the owner of the property. The case of the petitioner is that the power of attorney is an irrevocable general power of attorney coupled with interest and the effect of such a power of attorney is that the power holder becomes the owner of the extent of land over which he has such interest. It is hence contended that a sale deed executed with respect to the undivided share in the land, upto such extent over which he has interest under the power of attorney, does not require the fingerprint and the photograph of the owner of the property. There are inter se disputes between the petitioner and the owner regarding their obligations under the agreements entered into between them. It is not necessary to go into such disputes in this writ petition since the only question is the effect of Section 32A of the Registration Act . Sections 32 and 32A of the read thus:-
“S.32. Persons to present documents for registration.
- Except in the cases mentioned in sections 31, 88 and 89, every document to be registered under this Act, whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper registration office,
(a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or
(b) by the representative or assignee of such a person, or
(c) by the agent of such a person, representative or assign, duly authorized by power-of-attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned.
S.32A. Compulsory affixing of photograph , etc. — Every person presenting any document at the proper registration office under Section 32 shall affix his passport size photograph and fingerprints to the document.
Provided that where such document relates to the transfer of ownership of immovable property, the passport size photograph and fingerprints of each buyer and seller of such property mentioned in the document shall also be affixed to the document.”
3. The question whether the photograph and fingerprint of the owner has to be affixed has come up before this Court in several earlier proceedings. In W.P.(C) No.27975 of 2014 , a learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgment dated 27.11.2015 held that the very provision under Section 32A has been inserted to ensure that the documents are registered by proper buyers and proper sellers. As regards the proviso to Section 32A, the Court held that it takes care of a totally different situation than the main part and deals with transfer of ownership of immovable property. The Court held that a power of attorney holder, who is executing the document is not the buyer or the seller and hence incorporating a provision in the statute to show the identity of the buyer and the seller in the registered instrument cannot be termed either arbitrary or unreasonable. The Court further held that the incorporation of the provision is made consciously to avoid fraudulent transfers and benami transactions. InJoseph George v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2017 (4) KHC 948 ] another learned Judge of this Court took a similar view and held that even if an instrument is presented through a power
