JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 to the extent it denied registration of Ext.P6 partition deed presented by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent and for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to accept Exts.P2 and P3 instruments of Power of Attorney for the registration of Ext.P6 partition deed and register Ext.P6 partition deed, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

2. Petitioner is one of the co-owners in possession of the landed property ad-measuring a total extent of 4.05 Ares comprised in Survey No.42 of Irimbranallur Amsom Desom, Irimbranallur Village, Chavakkad Taluk by way of succession. Originally the said property was in the ownership and possession of the father of the petitioner, who obtained kudikidappu rights as per Ext.P1 kudikidappu certificate bearing No.O.A.2648/70 of Land Tribunal Chavakkad. One of the co-owners of the property, Sunita Viswananthan executed Ext.P2 instrument of power of attorney on 12.07.2023 in white paper in favour of the petitioner in the presence of the Consulate General of India, Dubai, UAE and the said instrument of power of attorney has been duly attested by the Consulate General of India, Dubai, UAE on the same date for the purpose of objects including partition of the above said property. Likewise, another co-owner of the property, Vishal Viswananthan also executed Ext.P3 instrument of power of attorney on 12.07.2023 in white paper in favour of the petitioner in the presence of the Consulate General of India, Dubai, UAE and the said instrument of power of attorney duly attested by the Consulate General of India, Dubai, UAE on the same day for the purpose of objects including partition of the above said property. The petitioner presented the said power of attorney before the office of the 2nd respondent for adjudication and remitted deficit Stamp Duty of Rs.42,256/-, as is evident from Exts.P4 and P5.

Thereafter, the co-owners decided to execute a partition deed and Ext.P6 partition deed was prepared and presented the same for registration before the 3rd respondent after taking token No.T 7605704. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P7 letter directing the petitioner to register Exts.P2 and P3 instruments of Power of attorney again which has already been registered in the presence of the Consulate General of India, Dubai, UAE and present Exts.P2 and P3 instruments of power of attorney again for the registration of Ext.P6 deed stating the reason that Exts.P2 and P3 instruments of power of attorney is not seen to be registered under law. Petitioner relying on Section 33 of the Registration Act 1908 submits that Exts.P2 and P3 are power of attorney recognized for the purpose of Section 32. Petitioner further relying on Section 32 of the Registration Act 1908 would submit that if the principal at the time aforesaid does not reside in India, a power of attorney executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consular, Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government is a recognizable power of attorney for the purpose of Section 32. Based on the above said provision petitioner would submit that Exts.P2 and P3 which were executed before the Consulate General of India and later on adjudicated by paying the requisite stamp duty, as is evident from Exts.P4 and P5 are valid power of attorney and that on the basis of Exts.P2 and P3, Ext.P6 partition deed should be directed to be registered without undergoing the procedure of registering the said Exts.P2 and P3 again as directed in Ext.P7. Petitioner relies on the judgment in Amose v. Sub Registrar, Meenachil (2021 (1) KHC 289), wherein this Court has considered identical situation and directed registration of the document based on the similarly registered power of attorney.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader also.

4. Admittedly, Exts.P2 and P3 power of attorneys were duly registered bef