Kerala High Court
Geetha Vijayanarayanan vs The District Registrar (General) on 4 March, 2026
1
W.P.(C) No. 8443/26
2026:KER:21447
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 8443 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
GEETHA VIJAYANARAYANAN, AGED 75 YEARS
W/O K.S VIJAYANARAYANAN GEETHANJALI HOUSE, OLLUKKARA,
THRISSUR, NOW RESIDING AT 15B, ASSET CHIRANG APARTMENTS,
PAVINKOOTAM LANE, KOLAZHY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680655
BY SHRI.K.R.PRATHISH
SMT.AISWARYA M.
SHRI.P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)
DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR,, PIN -
680020
2 THE SUB REGISTRAR
SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR,, PIN - 680020
3 THE GENERAL MANAGER
FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, RESERVE BANK OF
INDIA, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682017
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SRI. K.M FAISAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.P.(C) No. 8443/26
2026:KER:21447
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 4th day of March 2026) Petitioner and her husband are Indian citizens, and her son Dilip Panikath Vijay is a citizen of United States of America. He does not hold an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Card. Petitioner along with her husband has purchased Apartment No. 15 B bearing Door No. 1/457/116 of Thrissur Corporation situated in Re. Sy. Block No. 51, Re. Sy. No. 21/25 of Viyyur Village by virtue of sale deed dated 15.05.2019 bearing No.1303/2019 of Thrissur Sub Registrar Office. Subsequently, the petitioner and her husband transferred their 1/3rd right in the apartment to their son Dilip by virtue of Ext P2 settlement deed dated 05.10.2019 bearing No. 2505/2019 of Thrissur Sub Registrar Office.
2. Petitioner's son Dilip, who is settled in USA wants to transfer his 1/3rd right in the apartment covered by Ext.P2 to 3 W.P.(C) No. 8443/26 2026:KER:21447 the petitioner as he is not intended to settle here in Kerala. So, he has decided to execute a settlement deed in favour of the Petitioner. Thereafter, Ext P3 draft settlement deed was prepared and presented before the 2nd respondent, which was refused by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the settlor in the said deed is a Foreign Citizen and since the petitioner's son is not having an OCI card as per the FEMA Act, the property cannot be transferred to her. Aggrieved by the action on the part of 2nd respondent in refusing to register Ext.P3 draft settlement deed, the petitioner approached this Court.
3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the property has been acquired by the petitioner's son from her without obtaining any amount and now, the same property is being returned to her by Ext.P3. Hence, there is no violation of FEMA Act or Foreign Exchange Management (Non- debt 4 W.P.(C) No. 8443/26 2026:KER:21447 Instruments) Rules, 2019, and there is no prohibition to transfer. The proposed settlement merely retransfers the very same property to the original owner and does not involve any commercial transaction, sale, or exchange for consideration.
4. The counsel further submits that the property in question, which is the subject matter of Ext P3, was acquired by the petitioner's son from his mother, who is an Indian national. Now, since the same property is being returned to the petitioner itself by means of a settlement deed, there arises no question of commercial transaction for consideration. Thus, going by the relevant provisions of the FEMA Act, 1999 as well as FEMA Rules, 2019, there is no prohibition of transfer as such.
5. Heard the counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents.
6. A perusal of section 6(5) of the FEMA Act, 1999 5 W.P.(C) No. 8443/26 2026:KER:21447 would show that "a person resident outside India may hold, own, transfer or invest in Indian currency, security or any immovable property situated in India if such currency, security or property was acquired, held or owned by such person when he was resident in India or inherited from a person who was resident in India." Admittedly, the property in question sought to be transferred was acquired by the petitioner, who is an Indian resident.
7. As per Regulation 4(c) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property in India) Regulations, 2000 (FEMA - 2000), a person of Indian origin resident outside India may acquire any immovable property in India by way of inheritance from a person resident outside India who had acquired such property in accordance with the provisions of foreign exchange laws prevalent at the time of 6 W.P.(C) No. 8443/26 2026:KER:21447 execution OR from a person resident in India. In this case, petitioner's son had validly acquired the 1/3rd undivided share in the property under Ext P2 deed from his parents, who are Indian citizens. Therefore, the title of the petitioner's son over the property is lawful and undisputed. Once lawful ownership is established, the right to transfer the same in accordance with law, cannot be curtailed. As per regulation 4(b) of FEMA -2000, a person of Indian origin resident outside India may acquire any immovable property in India other than agricultural land/ farmhouse/plantation property in India by way of gift from a person resident in India or from a person resident outside India who is a citizen of India or from a person of Indian origin resident outside India.
8. Rule 24 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Non- debt Instruments) Rules, 2019, reads as follows: - 7 W.P.(C) No. 8443/26
2026:KER:21447 "Acquisition and transfer of property in India by an NRI or an OCI
24. A NRI or an OCI may-
(a) acquire immovable property in India other than an agricultural land or farmhouse or plantation property:
Provided that the consideration, if any, for transfer, shall be made out of:
(1) funds received in India through banking channels by way of inward remittance from any place outside India: or
(ii) funds held in any non-resident account maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Act, rules or regulations framed thereunder:
Provided further that no payment for any transfer of immovable property shall be made either by traveller's cheque or by foreign currency notes or by any other mode other than those specifically permitted under this clause;
acquire any immovable property in India other than agricultural land or farmhouse or
(b) plantation property by way of gift from a person resident in India or from an NRI or from an OCI, who in any case is a relative as defined in clause (77) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013;8 W.P.(C) No. 8443/26
2026:KER:21447 © acquire any immovable property in India by way of inheritance from a person resident outside India who had acquired such property:-
(i) in accordance with the provisions of the foreign exchange law in force at the time of acquisition by him or the provisions of these rules; or
(ii) from a person resident in India;
(d) transfer any immovable property in India to a person resident in India;
(e) transfer any immovable property other than agricultural land or farmhouse or plantation property to an NRI or an OCI."
Thus, taking into note the above relevant provisions to the point, it is only to be held that there is no prohibition in the property being transferred to the petitioner herein who is stated to be an Indian national.
9. Rules 72 and 72 A of the Registration Rules deal with the identification of parties appearing before the Registering Officer and the manner of enquiry conducted by the Registering officer. In the present context, as mentioned earlier, 9 W.P.(C) No. 8443/26 2026:KER:21447 the person who intends to register the settlement deed is indisputably, a foreign national without an OCI card. Thus, he will not be in a position to hold any of the identification cards as stipulated under Rule 72 A. The question as to whether he could be insisted on producing OCI card or any such documents as mentioned in Rule 72 A for effecting registration is already dealt with by this Court in Manu C Jacob v. The Sub Registrar [2019 (2) KLT 884], wherein it was held as follows:
"4. The very purport of Rule 72A has to be understood in the light of Rule 72. Rule 72 states about identifying parties appearing before the Registering Officer. It states that it should be proved with trustworthy evidence which may be available. The Rule 72A further illustrates the manner of enquiry to be conducted by the Registering Officer. Rule 72A states that the Registering Officer shall require the parties appearing before him to produce electoral identity card, ration card and such other cards as referred therein issued by the Government or any authority controlled by Government to satisfy himself as to their identity. Therefore, Rule 72A has to be understood in the light of Rule 72. It cannot be understood as an independent provision de hors Rule 72. Rule 72A as seen from the provision is only a procedural aspect of satisfying Rule 72. Therefore, what is important is the satisfaction of the Registering Officer in regard to identification of the parties. If identification of the parties can be relied upon with trustworthy evidence which is made available 10 W.P.(C) No. 8443/26 2026:KER:21447 before the Registering Officer, that can be relied upon by the Registering Officer. A person of foreign nationality cannot have any such documents as referred under Rule 72A. The Rule 72A can be only a guideline so far as Rule 72 is concerned. In the light of Rule 72, it is possible for a foreign national to produce any trustworthy evidence that may be available with him to register such documents. The Rule 72A is only to be understood as a provision that would make Rule 72 workable as far as a person who will be able to produce such documents as referred therein. A foreign national would not be in a position to produce any such documents as referred under Rule 72A.
Therefore, I am of the view that in the light of Rule 72, if the petitioner produces any such trustworthy document like attested copy of the passport, that would be sufficient for the purpose of registering the power of attorney. It is not necessary to have a personal presence of the executer of the power of attorney in the light of judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.23710/2018. Therefore, the Registering Authority is directed to permit the petitioner to register the power of attorney without insisting production of any of documents as referred under Rule 72A and accepting the Singapore passport as identification proof. The Registering Authority shall also not insist the presence of the foreign national for the purpose of registering the power of attorney."
Hence, in view of the abovesaid rules, if any trustworthy documents like original Passport is produced by the executant, that would be sufficient for the compliance of Rule 72 for the purpose of registration and hence, production of OCI card or any 11 W.P.(C) No. 8443/26 2026:KER:21447 documents as referred under Rule 72A can be done away with.
In the result, this writ petition stands allowed, directing the 2nd respondent to accept and register Ext P3 settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner by her son in respect of the 1/3rd undivided share by producing a copy of the passport he holds, without insisting upon production of an OCI Card as well as any other document as stipulated under Rule 72A of the Registration Rules. This exercise shall be done within a period of 2 weeks from the date of production of the sale deed with relevant records in accordance with the provisions contained in FEMA Act, Rules and Regulations stipulated for the purpose of registration.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI JUDGE dl/ 12 W.P.(C) No. 8443/26 2026:KER:21447 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 8443 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S SON PASSPORT ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 05.10.2019 BEARING NO. 2505/2019 OF THRISSUR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 02.03.2026 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.08.2023 IN WPC NO. 22367 OF 2023