IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20861 of 2011(G) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- KAKKUZHIYIL BASHEER, S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY @ MOHAMMEDKUTTY,KAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE MUTHOOR, POST TIRUR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS BROTHER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER KAKKUZHIYIL BAVA, S/O. -DO- BY ADVS. SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-676 506. 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, O/O.SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, TIRUR-676 101. 4. DR.PRABHA MENON, 13778, LOWE STREET, CHANTILLY, VA 20151, USA. 5. DR.SHOBA MENON, SENIOR CONSULTANT, DEPARTMENT OF PEDIATRICS, ROYAL HOSPTITAL, P.O.BOX 1331, CODE 111, CPO SEEB, SULTANATE OF OMAN. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 20861/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 08/05/2001 P2: COPY OF THE REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 17/04/2001. P3: COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF NARAYANAN NAIR DATED 21/01/2000. P4: COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF NARAYANAN NAIR DATED 09/01/2001. P5: COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27/05/2010. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DATED 11/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J .............................................. W.P.(C).20861/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner seeks a direction to the District Collector to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6, a representation made to initiate proceedings under Section 33 and 39 of the Kerala Stamp Act with respect to the power of attorney which are annexed to the said representation. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased certain immovable properties as per Exts.P1 and P2 title deeds. These documents were executed in favour of the petitioner by the power of attorney holders of respondents 4 and 5, who are the venders. Copies of the power of attorney are Exts.P3 and P4 which are dated 21.1.2000 and 9.1.2001 and are executed at United States of America and Muscat respectively. 3. According to the petitioner, when he wanted to avail of some financial assistance mortgaging the properties acquired by Ext.P1 and P2, an objection was raised that the power of attorneys were not W.P.(C).20861/11 2 registered. Therefore, he presented both the power of attorneys before the District Collector who declined to endorse stamp duty as per Section 32 of the Kerala Stamp Act. To his application under the Right to Information Act, Ext.P5 reply was given, which also stated that powers under Statute 32 and 40 cannot be exercised. Therefore, he filed Ext.P6 representation which is pending consideration of the District Collector and hence, this writ petition is filed seeking an order requiring the District Collector to consider Ext.P6. 4. In my view, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Adjudication of stamps have to be done in the manner as laid down in Chapter 3 of the Kerala Stamp Act. Section 32 of the Act reads as under- Certificate by Collector - (1). When an instrument brought to the Collector under Section 31 is in his opinion, one of a description chargeable with duty and (a). the Collector determines that it is already W.P.(C).20861/11 3 fully stamped or (b). the duty determined by the Collector under Section 31, or such a sum as with duty already paid in respect of the instrument is equal to the duty so determined, has been paid, the Collector shall certify by endorsement on such instrument that the full duty (stating the amount) with which it is chargeable has been paid. (2). When such instrument is, in his opinion, not chargeable with duty, the Collector shall certify in manner aforesaid that such instrument is not so chargeable. (3). Any instrument upon which an endorsement has been made under this Section shall be deemed to be duly stamped or not chargeable with duty, as the case may be; and, if chargeable with duty, shall be receivable in evidence or otherwise, and may be acted upon and registered as if it had been originally duty stamped: provided that nothing in this section shall authorize the Collector to endorse- (a).any instrument executed or first executed in India and brought to him after the expiration of one month from the date of its execution, or first execution, as the case may be; (b).any instrument executed or first executed out W.P.(C).20861/11 4 of India and brought to him after the expiration of three months after it has been first received in the State; or (c).any instrument chargeable with the duty of twenty paise or less than twenty paise when brought to him, after the execution thereof on paper not duly stamped. 5. Although this Section provides for determination of stamp duty and certification of documents executed outside the country, the proviso to Section 32 enumerates the circumstances in which the District Collector shall not make such endorsement. One of such circumstance covered by proviso (b) is that if any instrument executed or first executed out of India and brought to the District Collector after the expiration of three months after it has been first received in the State. In the case of such an instrument, the District Collector shall not make endorsement as provided in Section31 of the Stamp Act. 6. In this case, admittedly document in question was executed in 2000 and 2001 respectively. Petitioner does not have a case that W.P.(C).20861/11 5 the document was presented before the District Collector, before the expiration of three months after it has been first received in the State. If that be so, the aforesaid proviso prohibits the District Collector from making endorsement on such documents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Section 40 of the Act to contend that Ext.P6 representation is liable to be considered. Section 40 of the Stamp Act deals with the manner in which an instrument not duly stamped is brought to the District Collector. This Section does not deal with the power of District Collector to make endorsement on a document which is executed outside the country. Further this Section also provides that the document should have been brought before the Collector within one year from the date of its execution. The documents in this case do not satisfy this requirement. 8. Thus, the provisions contained in Section 32 and 40 of the Kerala Stamp Act do not come to the rescue of the petitioner and hence, the request of the petitioner as contained in Ext.P6 has no W.P.(C).20861/11 6 merit. Therefore, I am not inclined to direct consideration of Ext.P6 representation. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs