IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 32766 of 2009(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DEVASSYKUTTY, S/O.POULO, TETTA VEETTIL, MEKKALADY BAGAM, KALADY KARA, KALADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KALADY, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, KALADY BRANCH, PERUMBAVOOR. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V. MANU, R2 BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.32766/2009-M: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION OF THE P.1. GIVEN BEFORE THE KALADY POLICE STATION. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE KALADY POLICE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE DTD. 31/07/1997. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DTD. 09/05/2003 ISSUED BY THE KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED IN UNNUMBERED SOP/2007 BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10/04/2007 IN UNNUMBERED SOP/2007 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALUVA. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.16282/2009. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.32766 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner claims to be the son of Poulo and states that the said person has not been heard off for around 20 years by now, by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive. He, accordingly, pleads that Poulo's assets lying with the third respondent in an SB A/c. may be ordered to be released to him. 2.Going by the pleadings, Poulo left behind his wife Annam, the petitioner and a daughter Philomina. It is stated that Annam died in 2003 and Philomina who was a nun died in 2008. 3.It is pointed out that an officer of the third respondent, being an officer of a nationalised bank, could be treated as a person legally authorised to take evidence. It is accordingly argued that the petitioner could adduce evidence before an officer of WPC.32766/09. 2 the third respondent in terms of Section 108 of the Evidence Act and thereby obtain the funds lying in the name of late Poulo. 4.The third respondent is a nationalised bank. In the course of its banking transaction, it can release funds on indemnity or otherwise if the concerned officer of the bank is satisfied as to the bonafide and truthful nature of the petitioners' claim. It may be open to that authority to consider releasing the fund even with appropriate indemnity as may be decided upon by the third respondent. Hence this writ petition is ordered directing that any request that the petitioner may make shall be considered by the third respondent in accordance with law at the earliest. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.31/05.