The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the mandatory requirement in Section 32A of the Registration Act to affix photographs and fingerprints of the seller when a Power of Attorney holder presents a transfer document by the seller. The Court held the provision is reasonable to prevent fraud.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937
WP(C).No. 27975 of 2014 (V)
PETITIONER(S):
1. T.R.RAGHU, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN,AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, 28/3358/A, KADAVANTHRA P.O., KOCHI-682 020.
2. LILLY K.P., W/O.T.R.RAGHU, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, 28/3358/A, KADAVANTHRA P.O., KOCHI-682 020.
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. SUB REGISTRAR, ANGAMALY-683 541.
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
*ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED
*Addl.R4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF REGISTRATION, CENTRAL SECRETARIATE, NEW DELHI.
*ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER IN IA.NO.16704/2014 DATED 04.12.2014.
R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.PADMALAYAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 27975 of 2014 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXT.P1. | TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO.3055/1/2010 ALONG WITH SURVEY MAP. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2. | TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.7521/2007 EXECUTED ON 15/12/2007. |
| EXT.P3. | TRUE COPY OF THE IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY NO.300/IV/2010 DATED 3/11/2010. |
| EXT.P4. | TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT DATED 30/7/2014 DECLINED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR ALONG WITH SURVEY MAP. |
| EXT.P5. | TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.RR4/5448/2003 DATED 9/5/2007. |
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
============= W.P. (C) No. 27975 of 2014
===================
Dated this, the 27th day of November, 2015
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners challenge Ext.P5 and also seeks for a declaration that the provision, by which the buyer and seller is called upon to affix their photograph and finger prints in a document for transfer of immovable property when the document is executed and presented by a Power of Attorney Holder, is invalid.
W.P(C) No.27975/14
-:2:-
further indicates that in case of transfer of ownership of immovable property, the photographs and fingerprints of the buyer as well as the seller have to be affixed. According to the petitioners, when power is given for a Power of Attorney to execute and present a document for transfer of immovable property for registration, there is no reason why the photographs and the fingerprints of the seller has to be affixed. This, according to the petitioners, is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable
and therefore appropriate orders are to be passed for a declaration as sought for.
“ 32A. Compulsory affixing of photograph,
etc.- Every person presenting any document at the proper registration-office under Section 32 shall affix his passport size photograph and fingerprints to the document:
Provided that where such document relates to the transfer of ownership of immovable property the passport size photograph and fingerprints of each buyer and seller of such property mentioned
W.P(C) No.27975/14
-:3:-
in the document shall also be affixed to the document.”
W.P(C) No.27975/14
-:4:-
Power of Attorney Holder is not the buyer or the seller. Therefore, when the legislature found it fit to incorporate the provision that the identity of the buyer and seller have to be shown in the registered instrument and that too in respect of instances where immovable property is transferred, it cannot be termed as either arbitrary or unreasonable. The incorporation of such a provision is made consciously to avoid fraudulent transfers and benami transactions.
In the result, I do not find any merit in the above writ petition and, accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
Rp27/11/2015
//True Copy//
PS to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the mandatory requirement to affix photographs and fingerprints of the seller under Section 32A, when a document is presented by a Power of Attorney holder, violates fundamental rights as arbi
Whether the proviso inserted into Section 32 of the Registration Act Act is unreasonable or lacking legislative competence.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
T.R. RAGHU and ORS.
SUB REGISTRAR, ANGAMALY and ORS.
A.M. SHAFFIQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
