Judgment:
$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:
10. h July, 2014 % + W.P.(C) 710/2014 & CM No.1433/2014 ZARINA SIDDIQUI Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Rajiv K. Garg and Mr.Ashish Garg, Advocates. Versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel and Ms. Sana Ansari, Advocate for Respondent/ GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.
(Oral) W.P.(C) 710/2014 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondent No.2, the Sub-Registrar III, District Central, New Delhi, to issue the certified copy of the general power of attorney executed on 07.11.1978 vide Registration No.4271 in Additional Book No.4, Volume No.110 on page No.766.
2. Mr.Rajiv K. Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that one A. Ramalingam, a resident of Delhi, i.e., Friends Colony, New Delhi, owner of one-third share of property bearing No.43, Mission Road, Bangalore, appointed his brother Shri R. Vishawanathan as his lawful attorney through the registered GPA to look after/sell the aforesaid property. The said GPA was duly registered on 07.11.1978 in the office of the respondent No.2 vide No.4271, page No.766, Volume 110.
3. Learned counsel submits that on 25.06.1979, the petitioner entered into a sale agreement in respect of the aforesaid one-third undivided share through the aforesaid attorney Shri R. Vishawanathan and paid an advance money. The sale seed was to be executed on or before 30.12.1980. The petitioner is in the possession of the property and has also paid the entire sale consideration for the said property. However, Shri R. Vishawanathan died before the sale deed could be executed.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the said A.Ramalingam had set up a false plea that the powers held with Shri R. Vishawanathan were limited only to look after his share in the property, contrary to contents of the GPA and the binding action taken by the said GPA Holder. Since a letter dated 04.10.1980 was received by the petitioner from A. Ramalingam repudiating the sale agreement and making false and reckless allegations, therefore, a suit for specific performance was filed by the petitioner, which was decreed by the trial court.
5. Being aggrieved, Mr. A. Ramalingam challenged the same before the High Court of Karnataka, which ultimately reversed the findings vide its judgment dated 01.03.2012. Against which, the petitioner approached the Apex Court by way of an SLP bearing No.19555/2012, which is pending for adjudication.
6. Learned counsel further submits that on 28.08.2012, Mr.Sarkar Ali, Advocate, made a request to the respondent No.2 to issue the certified copy of the aforesaid GPA, however, the said request was turned down vide impugned communication dated 04.09.2012.
7. On the other hand, Ms.Zubeda Begum, learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that as per provisions of Section 57 (3) of the Registration Act, 1908, copies can be given only to an executant or an interested person. Since the petition was not filed by the applicant, therefore, the respondent No.2 has rightly declined to grant the certified copy of the GPA.
8. She further submits that one Shri Sarkar Ali, Advocate, filed an application in question for issuing the certified copy of the said GPA in the office of respondent No.2 on 28.08.2012. Vide communication dated 04.09.2012, respondent No.2 informed the said Advocate that as per the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, only the executant or the claimant can apply for the certified copy of the document as applicable.
9. To support her submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the case of T.K.Aysha Vs. Sub-Registrar, Kozhikode & Anr., AIR2003Kerala 52, which is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
10. Be that as it may, at this stage, Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a fresh application to this effect shall be filed on behalf of the petitioner or through her Attorney/Advocate.
11. I hereby make it clear that in case the application seeking supplying of certified copy of the said GPA is to be filed by the Advocate, the same should be accompanied by the Attorney/Vakalatnama of the said Advocate.
12. I further make it clear that under Section 57(3) of The Registration Act, 1908, there is no embargo to supply the certified copy of the public document in favour of any interested person. Moreover, it is specifically mentioned in the said provision that the copies of entries in Book No.4 and the Index relating thereto shall be given to any person executing or claiming under the documents to which such entries respectively refer, or to his agent or representative. In my considered opinion, this definition includes the interested and aggrieved person.
13. Since the aforementioned SLP is fixed for hearing before the Apex Court on 15.07.2014, counsel for the petitioner shall move the application for certified copy of the GPA today itself. On receipt of application, the respondent No.2 is directed to supply the same within a period of two days thereafter.
14. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed on the above terms. CM.No.1433/2014 (for stay) With the disposal of the petition itself, the instant application has become infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master. SURESH KAIT, J.
JULY10 2014 sb