The court heard an objection regarding the insufficient stamp duty on a power of attorney. It held that since the instrument was executed on Rs.150 stamp paper covering a higher schedule article, Section 34 challenge failed.
The petition challenging the sufficiency of stamp duty is dismissed without costs.
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 P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/21ST MAGHA, 1938
OP(C).No. 2266 of 2014 (O)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 1850/2013 DATED 24.07.2014 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM
PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS IN O.S. : -
BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR SMT.M.SANTHY
RESPONDENT / PLAINTIFF IN O.S. :-
UMA SHIVA RAMAN, W/O.P.K.SIVA RAMAN, AGED 54 YEARS, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT TC 24/2005, C.V.RAMAN PILLAI ROAD, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 8246, DUNHAM STATION DRIVE, TAMPA, FLORIDA, 33647 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, REPRESENTED BY HER P/A. HOLDER R.CHANDRAN KUTTY, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 49 YEARS, TC 42/461, MEENA MANDIRAM, PARAMBIL LANE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No. 2266 of 2014 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : -
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.1850/2013 DATED 19/12/2013. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 31/10/2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN OS 1850/2013. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS DATED 22/3/2014. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/7/2014. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE PROCESS SERVER DATED 18/12/2013.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : - NIL.
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
DMR/-
P. SOMARAJAN, J.
O.P.(c) No. 2266 of 2014
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2017
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2014 in O.S. No.1850 of 2013 of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the defendants came up with this petition. The matter in dispute is with respect to the power of attorney submitted by the plaintiff power holder along with the suit authorizing him to institute the suit and proceed with the suit. A preliminary objection was raised as to the authenticity of the power of attorney and the sufficiency of the stamp paid and it was contended that as per Section 34 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, the said power of attorney cannot be acted upon as it is insufficiently stamped. The power of attorney in question is executed in favour of one power holder authorizing him to institute the suit and proceed with the suit for and on behalf of the plaintiff and as such it would come under the purview of Article 44(b) of Schedule I of Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The required stamp is only Rs.100/-, but the power of
O.P.(c) No. 2266 of 2014
2
attorney is endorsed in a stamp paper of Rs.150/- and as such it would not come under the purview of Section 34 of the Kerala Stamp Act. Hence, petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed but without costs.
P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE
DMR/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a power of attorney executed on Rs.150/- stamp paper falling under a higher schedule article can be challenged under Section 34 for insufficient stamp duty.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
INDIRA SANKAR
SANKARA NARAYANAN
UMA SHIVA RAMAN
P. SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
