IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 WA.No. 878 of 2005 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36673/2003 Dated 28/11/2003 .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- PASTER K.M., JOSEPH, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 69, ANCHERIL HOUSE, VENGOLA KARA, VENGOLA VILLAGE, KUNNAITHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.878 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. The short question that arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge was whether the respondent, the Sub Registrar, Ernakulam was justified in declining the application of the respondent/writ petitioner to grant a certified copy of the Power of Attorney registered as 385/1988/IV, on the basis of which Ext.P1 registered document was executed in his favour. The learned Judge held that the stand taken by the appellant was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the appellant was directed to issue the certified copy of the Power of Attorney referred to in Ext.P1 document. The said direction is under challenge in this appeal. 2. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the appellant that, going by clause 3 of Section 57 of the Registration Act, 1908 (herein after referred to as “the Act”), only a person executing or claiming under the document could be provided with a copy of the entries in Book No.4 and the index relating thereto. W.A.No.878 of 2005 -2- 3. In our view, the above contention is totally misconceived and untenable. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner was the beneficiary of Ext.P1 document. The property covered under the said document was assigned in his favour, of course, by the Power of Attorney holder who was duly authorized. For that sole reason the petitioner was undoubtedly entitled to get the copy of the Power of Attorney on the basis of which the property was conveyed to him. Still further, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner being the title holder of the property, he was entitled to get all documents relating to that property. Going by the provisions contained under Section 57 (3) of the Act, the learned Single Judge, in our view, was perfectly justified in issuing the direction to the appellant to grant a certified copy of the Power of Attorney. There is no merit in the appeal and therefore it is dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS