The scope and purport of identification of the

party by a Registering Officer to register a power

of attorney or any document is called in question in

this writ petition.

2.

A Singapore citizen of Indian origin is

having an ancestral property in India. The Singapore

citizen executed a power of attorney with an

authority to transfer the immovable property in

India. This power of attorney is a compulsory

registerable document under Section 17(1)(g) of Part

III of the Registration Act, 1908 as amended by Act

31 of 2013. The power of attorney has been executed

in favour of an Indian citizen. He presented the

power of attorney for registration.

3.

The Registering Authority noting the mandate

of Rule 72A of the Registration Rules (Kerala)

insisted production of any of documents as referred

in Rule 72A for identification of executant of power

of attorney who is a foreign national. These

WP(C)No9747/2019 3

documents are Pan card, ration card, identity card

or like documents issued by the Government or any

authority controlled by the Government. Admittedly,

Singapore citizen does not have any such cards as

referable under Rule 72A. The Registering Authority

has no other objection for registering the power of

attorney. The question is whether a foreign national

need to produce any such documents as referred under

Rule 72A.

4.

The very purport of Rule 72A has to be

understood in the light of Rule 72. Rule 72 states

about identifying parties appearing before the

Registering Officer. It states that it should be

proved with trustworthy evidence which may be

available. The Rule 72A further illustrates the

manner of enquiry to be conducted by the Registering

Officer. Rule 72A states that the Registering

Officer shall require the parties appearing before

him to produce electoral identity card, ration card

and such other cards as referred therein issued by

the Government or any authority controlled by

Government to satisfy himself as to their identity.

WP(C)No9747/2019 4

Therefore, Rule 72A has to be understood in the

light of Rule 72. It cannot be understood as an

independent provision de hors Rule 72. Rule 72A as

seen from the provision is only a procedural aspect

of satisfying Rule 72. Therefore, what is important

is the satisfaction of the Registering Officer in

regard to identification of the parties. If

identification of the parties can be relied upon

with trustworthy evidence which is made available

before the Registering Officer, that can be relied

upon by the Registering Officer. A person of foreign

nationality cannot have any such documents as

referred under Rule 72A. The Rule 72A can be only a

guideline so far as Rule 72 is concerned. In the

light of Rule 72, it is possible for a foreign

national to produce any trustworthy evidence that

may be available with him to register such

documents. The Rule 72A is only to be understood as

a provision that would make Rule 72 workable as far

as a person who will be able to produce such

documents as referred therein. A foreign national

WP(C)No9747/2019 5

would not be in a position to produce any such

documents as referred under Rule 72A.

Therefore, I am of the view that in the light of

Rule 72, if the petitioner produces any such

trustworthy document like attested copy of the

passport that would be sufficient for the purpose of

registering the power of attorney. It is not

necessary to have a personal presence of the

executer of the power of attorney in the light of

judgment of this Court in W.P.(c)No.23710/2018.

Therefore, the Registering Authority is directed to

permit the petitioner to register the power of

attorney without insisting production of any of

documents as referred under Rule 72A and accepting

the Singapore passport as identification proof. The

Registering Authority shall also