IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 15467 of 2008(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- GISHA GEORGE, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.M.J.GEORGE, MARANGOLY HOUSE, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA-6. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH JOSE. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. GEORGE MATHEW, 10, PANJOS GARDEN, PADIVATTOM, COCHIN. 2. SMT.MAREENA MATHEW, W/O.GEORGE MATHEW, 10, PANJAS GARDEN, PADIVATTOM, COCHIN. 3. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., M.G.ROAD, BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 4. SIVADASAN, S/O.KANNAN, SIVAGIRI HOUSE, S.P.W.ROAD, THAIKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA. 5. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36. ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) FOR R3, SRI.V.V.SIDHARTHAN FOR R4, SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R1 & R2, SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE FOR R1 & R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15467/ 2008-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY COCHIN CORPORATION DTD. 24/04/2003. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY ALUVA WEST VILLAGE DTD. 13/02/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE CHOORNIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 08/05/2008 ISSUED BY THE DOCTOR. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE WHOLE BODY SKELETAL SCINTGRAHY REPORT DTD. 10/05/08. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE HOSPITAL RECORDS AND BILLS. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 15/03/2008 BY THE PETITIONER WITH R.1. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE CHEQUES ISSUED BY THE POWER HOLDER TO PETITIONER'S FATHER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.15467 of 2008-N = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the daughter of one M.J.George, who transferred an item of property to the first respondent through his power of attorney holder. That power of attorney is Ext.R4(c). The first respondent mortgaged that item of property to the third respondent bank and availed a loan. That resulted in recovery proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal granted a recovery certificate. The property was consequently brought to sale and it has been purchased by the fourth respondent in an auction conducted by the Recovery Officer. On 14-2-2008, that sale was confirmed and sale certificate has been issued. This writ petition is filed by contending that WP(C)15467/2008 -: 2 :- the petitioner had lost her mother and thereafter, her father M.J.George became ill and was identified as having cancer on his breast area. Pointing out these circumstances, the petitioner shown to be aged 24 years in the writ petition contended that the family would be thrown to the street. In its essence, the attempt was to challenge the sale conducted by the Recovery Officer on the premise that the power of attorney executed by the father of the petitioner has been abused to effect a sale in favour of the first respondent who, in turn, mortgaged the property in favour of the third respondent bank. It appeared initially that the attempt of the petitioner was to bypass by paying off the fourth respondent and settling the transactions amicably. But it appears that the petitioner was not able to do that and not only that, the relationship of the petitioner and her father with the fourth respondent, their immediate neighbour does not appear to be cordial even to canvass the fourth respondent for any amicable WP(C)15467/2008 -: 3 :- settlement. This Court cannot thrust any settlement on the fourth respondent who, on the basis of materials on record, is legally entitled to have the sale. It is not for this Court to go into the question of any fraudulent transaction between the petitioner's father and his power of attorney holder under Ext.R4(c) or between that power of attorney holder and the first respondent who, in turn, mortgaged the property in favour of the third respondent. Leaving open all such contentions, I find no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned proceedings. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/260808