Karnataka High Court
Sri. Srinivas Reddy vs The Registrar on 13 July, 2018
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.32710/2017 (GM-ST/RN)
BETWEEN:
Sri. Srinivas Reddy
S/o late P V Reddy,
Aged about 62 years
Residing at Kommasandra Village
Dammasandra Post
Sarjapura Hobli
Anekal Taluk
Bangalore District-562 108.
...Petitioner
(By Sri Ashwin S Halady, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Registrar,
Department of Stamps and Registration
Jayanagara Registration District
Jayanagara
Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Senior Sub-Registrar,
Jayanagara (J.P.Nagar)
Bangalore-560 011.
3. Sri K.V.Nagaraj,
S/o Venkatanarayanappa,
Aged about 73 years,
4. Sri.K V Sathyanarayuana,
S/o Venkatanarayanappa,
Aged about 62 years,
2
5. Sri K V Prabhakara
S/o Venkatanarayanappa,
Aged about 60 years,
Defendants Nos. 3 to 5 are
Residing at No.1296/1,
Begur Village,
Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk-560 068.
...Respondents
(By Sri D R Anandeshwara, HCGP)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the
cancellation of General Power of Attorney dated
30.05.2017 executed by the respondent Nos.3 to 5
registered by respondent No.2 vide document No.JPN-4-
00052-2016-17, in Book No.4 stored in C.D.No.JPND452
registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jayanagara
(JP Nagar), Bangalore at Annexure-A.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary
Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is seeking for quashing of the deed of cancellation of General Power of Attorney dated 30.05.2017 executed by respondent Nos.3 to 5 which has been registered by respondent No.2, contending inter-alia that:
i) In the absence of petitioner affixing his signature or consenting for the same, the Sub-
Registrar could not have admitted the document 3 for registration, since power under the GPA dated 24.07.2000 had been granted;
ii) The registration of cancellation deed could not have been accepted by the Sub-Registrar since the presence of petitioner as agent under the original power of attorney was not present when deed of cancellation came be presented.
iii) Admitting the execution of the deed of cancellation is contrary to Section 33 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the records.
3. After arguing the matter for considerable length of time, learned counsel sought permission or leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. This Court had noticed that petition being fictitious, frivolous, rights of parties arising out of the transaction is a perpetual right requires to be enforced in a proper civil proceedings was inclined to 4 dismiss the writ petition and at that stage leave had been sought. In that view of the matter, this Court has declined the prayer to withdraw the writ petition.
4. So far as the grounds 1 and 2 urged by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner would clearly disclose that respondent Nos.3 to 5 who are owners of the property had executed a general power of attorney in favour of petitioner on 24.07.2000 and it was duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jayanagara, Bangalore. Petitioner is said to have acted upon the said Power of Attorney and has created third party rights. Subsequently, on account of differences having arisen the respondent No.3, 4 and 5 herein who had executed a power of attorney in favour of the agent, namely, the petitioner herein, they have cancelled the said power of Attorney by presenting a deed of cancellation in the office of Sub- Registrar, Jayanagara on 30.05.2017, which came to be duly registered by respondent No.2-Sub Registrar. 5
5. Section 34 of the Registration Act 1908, when perused, would clearly disclose that documents presented for registration is not required to be registered under the said Act, unless the person executing such document or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized to appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 appears. Even in case of there being any delay in the appearance the provision of sub clause (1) of Section 34 of Registration Act enable the Registering officer to permit them to appear later, if the delay does not exceed four months and he is also empowered to direct the payment of fine not exceeding 10 times the amount of registration if any in addition to, if any payable under Section 25 of the Act. If there are more than one person who are executing the document, sub clause (2) of Section 34 enables the Registering Officer to accept the appearances may be simultaneous or at different times. It is not the case of petitioner in the instant case that executants of Power 6 of Attorney dated 24.07.2000 Annexure-D have not appeared before the Sub-Registrar when they presented the deed of cancellation. As such, the contention of Sri Ashwin S Halady, learned counsel appearing for petitioner cannot be accepted.
6. If at all petitioner is aggrieved by the deed of cancellation and by virtue of power of Attorney granted to him on 24.07.2000 by the members of family of respondent Nos.3 to 5, and petitioner has acted upon it and has created third party rights, consequences would follow and it may protect the rights of such third parties. However, no opinion is expressed in this regard. That apart, these issues would be in the domain of a civil dispute and same will have to be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court if such dispute would arise.
7. Petitioner in the instant case has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari by quashing the deed of cancellation of General Power of Attorney dated 30.05.2017 presented by respondent Nos.3 to 5, 7 canceling the power of attorney executed by them on 24.07.2000 which cannot be granted for the reasons aforestated. Hence, petition deserves to be mulcted with costs.
Hence, the following;
ORDER
i) Writ petition is hereby dismissed with costs of
Rs.2000/- which is payable to Chief
Minister's Flood Relief fund.
ii) It is made clear that no opinion is expressed
with regards to the merits of the case.
iii) In the event costs ordered is not deposited within four weeks by the petitioner, the Registry shall issue certificate in favour of the respondent No.2 to enable him to recover the said amount from petitioner as arrears of land revenue.
SD/-
JUDGE SB