HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T. R. Ravi, J
HEDRIN LAWRANCE PEREIRA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
WP(C)/38884/2022
Power of Attorney - Registration - Indian Registration Act - Sections 17, 26, 33 - The court highlighted that a Power of Attorney permitting execution and registration of documents must be registered. It condoned delay in registration due to the pandemic and the special provisions of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, as Power of Attorney holder for a property owner, sought registration of the Power of Attorney that was deemed non-registrable by the authorities due to its supposed statutory obligations and prior delays in submission during the pandemic.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner is entitled to register the Power of Attorney despite the initial denial. It confirmed that the delay in presentation could be excused considering the circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Issues: Whether the Power of Attorney requires registration and if the delay in registration can be condoned due to pandemic conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the mandatory registration of the Power of Attorney is required and adherence to amended sections of the Registration Act is necessary, while also applying relief measures for delays due to unprecedented circumstances.
Final Decision: The petition was granted, allowing registration of the Power of Attorney and condoning any delays.
JUDGMENT
Admit. Government Pleader takes notice for respondents.
2. The petitioner is the Power of Attorney holder of one Dr.Ravintharan who is a permanent resident of Singapore. Ext.P1 Power of Attorney was executed for the purpose of selling the share of the Principal in property referred to in Ext.P1. The document was executed on 30.12.2020 and was adjudicated for stamp duty by the 2nd respondent. The adjudicated amount of Rs.2,99,344/- was remitted in the Treasury on 03.05.2021 as evidenced by Ext.P3. The petitioner submits that during the Covid-19 pandemic, it was difficult to find a buyer for the property and the buyer came forward only recently and an agreement for sale was executed and later the sale deed was also drawn up. It is submitted that the sale deed was presented for registration before the 4th respondent on 20.06.2022, but the 4th respondent declined to register the sale deed for the reason that Ext.P1 Power of Attorney is not a registered document. The petitioner preferred Ext.P5 representation before the 3rd respondent contending that Ext.P1 is not compulsorily registrable and is covered under Section 33 (1) of the Registration Act. It is submitted that the 4th respondent took a stand that even if the Power of Attorney is registered, the period prescribed under Section 26 (b) of the Registration Act is over and registration is not possible. It is in the above circumstances, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition praying for a direction to call for the records leading to Ext.P6 and set aside the same and to declare that Ext.P1 Power of Attorney does not require registration. It is also prayed that there may be direction to the 4th respondent to accept Ext.P1 Power of Attorney for registration on presentation by the petitioner instead of by the executant personally and to declare that the period under Section 26 (b) of the Registration Act stands excluded in view of Ext.P8 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India whereby relaxation was granted with respect to the period of limitation. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents reiterating the stand taken by the 4th respondent.
3. The 3rd respondent has contended that the petitioner is not a family member as defined under Section 17 (1)(g) of the Indian Registration Act and hence action rejecting the registration was correct in law. It is also submitted that since the Power of Attorney was prepared on 26.09.2018 and Section 17 had been amended with effect from 30.09.2013, the Power of Attorney is compulsorily registrable.
4. InMary v. Sub Registrar, Irinjalakuda and Others [ 2021 (1) KHC 243 ], this Court held that a Power of Attorney executed, notarized and attested at Consulate General abroad can be presented for registration by power holder. In WP(C)No.31437 of 2022, this Court had relied on the decision in Cherryl Ann Joy Vs. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar's Office, Udumbanchola [ILR 2018 (3) Kerala 540] wherein it was held that Section 17 (1)(g) of the Registration Act which is a special provision, will prevail over Section 33 (1)(c) of the Act and necessarily a Power of Attorney permitting execution and registration of a document of transfer needs to be registered. This court, held that the notarized Power of Attorney can be got registered by presentation by the power holder himself. In view of the above legal position, the only question to be considered is whether the delay in presentation of the document for registration should be condoned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had in Ext.P8 judgment extended the period of limitation with respect to proceedings before the Court and all other quasi proceedings for which the period of limitation is prescribed under the general laws and special laws. The said period is available till 28.02.2022 and limitation has to be worked out from the said date. Applying the relaxation granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the document should have been presented for registration on or before
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.