Disposed

Jasmi v. the District Collector

Kerala HC3 Jul 2018WP(C)/19540/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court observed that the petitioners' powers of attorney were executed abroad but engrossed on valid Indian non-judicial stamp paper of the prescribed value. Citing precedent, the Court held that Sec.18 of the Kerala Stamp Act does not apply to such cases, rendering registration unnecessary for this specific instrument type. Consequently, the prayers were not decided on merit, and the writ pet

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without deciding the prayers on merit.

Jasmi Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 19540 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

1 JASMI, D/O.HUSSAIN, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT YASIN, PARAKUNNU P.O., NAVAIKULAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2 SHANIFA, W/O.SALIM, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT ROSE VILLA, KATTUMUTHAKKAL, MUDAPURAM P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

3 SUBAIR, S/O.NABEESA BEEVI, AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUBAIR MANZHIL, VETTIYARA P.O., NAVAIKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SMT.N.V.SANDHYA SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL SRI.SAABIR F. HAQ

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶13

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. A.C. VIDHYA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sdr/6.7.18

¶17

WP(C).No. 19540 of 2018 (N)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 26/1/2018
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 26/12/2017
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 8/1/2018
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PASSPORT OF THAJUDEEN
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1/6/2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶21

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

sdr/6.7.18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

W.P(C).No.19540 Of 2018

¶27

Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2018.

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶30

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to stamp Exts.P1 to P3;

¶31

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P5;

¶32

iii) Award costs and iv) Any other relief this Hon'ble Court deems fit.”

¶33

2. Heard Sri.B.Krishna Mani, learned counsel appearing for

¶34

the petitioners and Smt.A.C.Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶35

The case of the petitioners herein is that they have presented Exts.P-1 to P-3 powers of attorneys executed in their favour for stamping in accordance with the Kerala Stamp Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kudappanakkunnu, Thiruvananthapuram, as envisaged in Sec.18 of the Kerala Stamp Act. According to the petitioners, Exts.P-1 to P-3 powers of attorneys were received in the State of Kerala on 29.4.2018. The petitioners would aver that Exts.P-1 to P-3 have been executed in different foreign countries in the Gulf and

¶36

that they have been duly attested by the officials concerned of the Indian Embassy/Consulate of India, in those respective foreign countries

¶37

::2::

¶38

W.P(C).No.19540 Of 2018

¶39

concerned. The case of the petitioners is that Exts.P-1 to P-3 were not sent by mail but through one of the executants of Ext.P-3, Sri.Thajudeen, who was in the Gulf country and who had reached Kerala on 29.4.2018 and that the petitioner would place reliance on the Passport entries of the above said Thajudeen to establish that he reached Kerala only on 29.4.2018. According to the petitioners, since the powers of attorneys have been received in the State of Kerala on 29.4.2018, they can produce it for stamping within 3 months from the date of receipt of the documents in the State of Kerala, which is up to 28.7.2018. Petitioners would aver that though the same was produced before the 2nd respondent-RDO for stamping, he had insisted that relevant materials may be shown to evidence the date of receipt of those documents in the State of Kerala and that he is not acting through the evidence produced by Sri.Thajudeen, who arrived in the State of Kerala on 29.4.2018, etc. That the petitioners would place reliance on the provisions of Sec.18 of the Kerala Stamp Act, which reads as follows:

¶40

“S ec.18: Instruments executed out of India .- (1) Every instrument chargeable with duty executed only of India may be stamped within three months after it has been first received in the State of Kerala.

¶41

(2) Where any such instrument cannot, with reference to the description of stamp prescribed therefor, be duly stamped by a private person, it may be taken within the said period of three months to the Collector who shall stamp the same, in such manner as the Government may by rules prescribe, with a stamp of such value as the person so taking such instrument may require and pay for”

¶42

::3::

¶43

W.P(C).No.19540 Of 2018

¶44

It is in the light of these aspects, the instant Writ Petition (Civil) has been filed seeking the aforementioned reliefs.

¶45

The learned Government Pleader has secured instructions from the 2nd respondent and would state that she has been instructed to submit by the 2nd respondent that documents as per Exts.P-1 to P-3 have been never produced for stamping before that official and immediately on knowing about the pendency of the Writ Petition (Civil) and on receipt of Ext.P-5 representation, he had sent letter requesting the petitioners to produce the documents concerned before him in order to effectuate further action in accordance with law and the petitioners have not cared to produce those documents before him.

¶46

Exts.P-1 to P-3 are the powers of attorneys. It is seen that each of those documents have been executed on stamp papers worth Rs.300/- each and those stamp papers are seen issued in terms of the provisions contained in the Stamp Act. It is seen that Exts.P-1 power of attorney has been executed by the executant concerned in favour of his wife, Ext.P-2 in favour of his mother and Ext.P-3 in favour of the brother of the executant concerned, respectively. If that be so, as per the provisions contained in clause (c) of Article 44 of the Schedule appended to the Stamp Act, the stamp duty for such powers of attorneys is Rs.300/-. Taking Exts.P-1 to P-3 as it is, each of those documents

¶47

::4::

¶48

W.P(C).No.19540 Of 2018

¶49

have been executed on stamp paper worth Rs.300/- each. This Court in the decision in Anitha Rajan v. R.D.O., Thrissur , reported in 2010 (1) KLT 932, has held that the restriction imposed in Sec.18(1) and the proviso to Sec.32(3) of the Stamp Act do not apply to a case where a power of attorney is executed at Dubai is engrossed on Indian non-judicial stamp paper of the value of Rs.150/-, as such a case is not stamping as envisaged in Sec.18 of the Kerala Stamp Act. Therefore, taking Exts.P-1 to P-3 as it is, it appear that resort to the provisions contained in Sec.18 of the Kerala Stamp Act is not necessary. Sri.B.Krishna Mani, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as Exts.P-1 to P-3 have been duly executed before the competent official of the Indian Embassy of the Indian Consulate, registration under the Indian Registration Act is not necessary. In the light of these aspects, there is no necessity for considering the prayers on merit in this Writ Petition (Civil). These observations are made by this Court by taking note Exts.-1 to P-3 as it is and without examining any of the other aspects of the matter in that regard.

¶50

Int he light of these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

¶53

Bkn/-

¶54

// True copy //

¶55

P.A to Judge

Jasmi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasmi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saleena Beevi Vs the State of Kerala

Vineeshkumar Vs State of Kerala

Bindu Vs the District Collector

Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs the District Registrar (General)

Sanooja.v.Nair Vs the Registrar of Births and Deaths

Kunhimuhammed Haji Vs the Land Tribunal Tirur