Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 13430
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice S. SOUNTHAR
G.S.TAMILSELVAN – Appellant
Versus
S.RAJESHKANNA – Respondent
A foreign Power of Attorney must adhere to Indian stamp duty requirements to be valid in legal proceedings.
Headnote:
Power of Attorney - Recognition - Stamp Duty - Sections 2, 3 of the Stamp Act - The court emphasized the necessity for adequate stamp duty and adjudication of a Power of Attorney executed abroad to ensure its validity in India.
Fact of the Case:
A suit for partition was filed by the 1st respondent who appointed his father as Power of Attorney while residing in the United States. The application for recognition of this Power of Attorney was challenged on the grounds of non-registration and lack of stamp duty.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court accepted the application, stating that registration of a Power of Attorney is not mandatory. However, the High Court noted that the lack of proper stamp duty and failure to adjudicate were significant shortcomings overlooked by the Trial Court.
Issues: Whether a Power of Attorney executed abroad is valid under Indian law if it lacks proper stamp duty and has not been adjudicated.
Ratio Decidendi: A Power of Attorney executed in a foreign country must be properly stamped and adjudicated upon entering India to be considered valid; the Trial Court erred in not recognizing these requirements.
Final Decision: The order of the Trial Court was set aside, allowing the 1st respondent to file a fresh application with a properly stamped Power of Attorney.
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the application filed by the 1st respondent seeking recognition of his father as his duly constituted Power of Attorney.
2. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit for partition. Since the 1st respondent is settled at United States of America, he appointed his father K.Jaganathan, as his Power of Attorney. The instant application has been filed to recognise the Power of Attorney of the 1st respondent. In support of the petition, the 1st respondent also filed Power of Attorney executed by him at United States dated 10.09.2019.
3. The petition was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that Power of Attorney was unregistered one and therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration. It was also pointed out by the petitioner in the counter affidavit that Power of Attorney was not executed in a stamp paper and the same was not adjudicated upon by the Registering Authority with regard to the stamp duty.
4. The Trial Court allowed the application mainly on the ground that Power of Attorney need not be registered. However, non-payment of proper stamp duty and failure to get it adjudicated by the Registering Authority in India was not at all considered by Trial Court.
5. It is settled law if Power of Attorney executed in Foreign Country does not bear proper stamp duty, the same shall be adjudicated on it's receipt in India within the time stipulated. In the case on hand, a perusal of the Power of Attorney produced by the 1st respondent would suggest the same was executed in a white paper, without payment of any Indian Non-Judicial Stamp. Therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration by the Court.
The time for adjudication is also already over. In such circumstances, based on the Power of Attorney, which is not properly stamped and adjudicated, the Trial Court ought not to have allowed the application.
6. Accordingly, the order impugned in this revision petition is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. However, it is open to the 1st respondent to file fresh application with a same prayer by producing properly stamped and adjudicated Power of Attorney. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.03.2024 Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No dm To The Additional District Court, Namakkal.
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
06.03.2024
