Jai Kumar vs. Hanuman & Ors. AIR 2015 Rajasthan 24 The petitioner plaintiff Jai Kumar through his power of attorney holder brother Yogesh Chandra filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent defendant. When during the course of statement by the power of attorney holder Yogesh Chandra the power of attorney given by the plaintiff – Jai Kumar was sought to be exhibited, an objection was raised that the power of attorney was neither registered nor the same bear requisite stamp duty and therefore, the same was inadmissible in evidence.
In reply, it was contended that the document was not required to be registered and as the power of attorney was executed at Qatar before the Indian Embassy and requisite fee amounting to 75 Qatari Riyals was paid, the same was sufficient in terms of sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (`the Act’).
The trial court came to the conclusion that the power of attorney was required to be compulsorily registered u/s. 17(1)(g) of the Act and as the same was not registered, u/s. 49 of the Act, the same was inadmissible.
The Hon’ble Court observed that a bare look at the said provision reveals that the power of attorney relating to transfer of immovable property should be `irrevocable’ for the same to be liable for compulsory registration.
The power of attorney nowhere indicates that the same was irrevocable. The requirement of applicability for provision of section 17(1)(g) of the Act, i.e. the power of attorney must be irrevocable, not being present in the document, it cannot be said that the same was compulsorily registerable.
The trial court without considering the said aspect has presumed the power of attorney as irrevocable, which presumption on face of it is incorrect and as such the said finding cannot be sustained.
So far as the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent regarding deficient stamp duty is concerned, the submission has substance. The document and the receipt alongwith the document, does not indicate payment of any stamp duty on the said power of attorney. The amount of 75 Qatari Riyals said to have been paid by the plaintiff Jai Kumar cannot be said to be a payment of stamp duty.
Even otherwise, under the provisions of section 20 of the Stamp Act, even if a stamp duty has been paid in another State and the document is brought within Rajasthan, the document is chargeable with the difference of duty in case the duty to be paid is higher and the duty should have been already paid on the document `in India’.
In that view of the matter, even if, any payment has been made by the Petitioner at Qatar, which though cannot be termed as payment of stamp duty, and the Power of Attorney is liable to payment of stamp duty under article 44 of the Schedule attached to the Stamp Act.
The document was, therefore, liable to be dealt with by the trial court u/s. 39 read with sections 37 and 42 of the Stamp Act for determination and payment of deficient stamp duty.
