V.R. Jameela vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 21413 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
         FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 21546 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

              V.R. JAMEELA, AGED 67 YEARS
              W/O.MAJEED, RESIDING AT 30/211,
              THOTTINGAL (PANICKASSERY) HOUSE,
              NOORANI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678004.

              BY ADVS.
              JACOB SEBASTIAN
              K.V.WINSTON
              ANU JACOB


RESPONDENT:

     1        STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
              DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.

     2        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE,
              CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001.

     3        THE SUB REGISTRAR, PALAKKAD, SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE,
              CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001.



              SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN- SR.GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 21546/21
                                     2



                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner alleges that, in spite of the

fact that she had presented a Sale Deed with

respect to a property owned by her son-in-law, who

is presently abroad, on the strength of Ext.P1

power-of-attorney executed by him and attested by

the competent Consulate General in Dubai, the 3rd

respondent - Sub Registrar is refusing to register

it saying that a power-of-attorney executed out

side India cannot be accepted here. She says that

this objection is contrary to the statutory

prescriptions and therefore, prays that the 3rd

respondent be directed to permit her to register

the Sale Deed, on the strength of Ext.P1 without

any delay.

2. The learned Senior Government Pleader -

Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan, submitted that he does

not have any specific instruction as to why the

3rd respondent has refused to accept the power-of-

attorney but that if the same is found to be WPC 21546/21

genuine and valid as per the applicable laws,

there does not appear to be any legal impediment

in permitting the petitioner to act as per its

terms in order to present Ext.P2 document and to

have it registered. He prayed that, therefore,

this Court may allow the 3rd respondent to hear

the petitioner and examine the documents, thus

leading to a final decision in terms of law.

3. When I examine the afore submissions and

also the documents,, it is limpid that the

petitioner has presented Ext.P2 for registration

before the 3rd respondent on the strength of

Ext.P1 power-of-attorney executed by her son-in-

law, who is the owner of the property concerned.

If Ext.P1 is validly attested by the competent

Consulate General, I fail to understand how the

3rd respondent can raise objection regarding its

validity, particularly because the law in this

area is now well settled.

4. However, I do not propose to speak

affirmatively on this issue, but am of the view WPC 21546/21

that the 3rd respondent must consider the matter

and issue appropriate proceedings thereon without

any avoidable delay.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and

permit the petitioner to present Ext.P2 on the

strength of Ext.P1; and if this is done within a

period of one week from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment, the said Authority will

hear the petitioner or her representative and take

a final decision on her request for its

registration in terms of law and after following

due procedure, within a period of one week

thereafter.

After I dictated this part of the judgment,

Sri.Jacob Sebastian - learned counsel for the

petitioner, submitted that his client has also

been informed that the 3rd respondent takes a

stand that Ext.P1 is invalid because it is

executed by her son-in-law and not a blood

relative.

I fail to understand the purport of this WPC 21546/21

objection, because the law relating to power-of-

attorney is well recognised and I do not know how

any Authority can take such objection. However, I

am of the view that the 3 rd respondent must take

note of this contention in its proper perspective,

while the afore exercise is completed.

Sd/-

RR                              DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                     JUDGE
 WPC 21546/21


               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21546/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1        A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
                  EXECUTED ON 23.04.2021.

Exhibit P2        A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED PRESENTED

BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22.09.2021 IN THE OFFICE OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT.