IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8057 of 2008(H) ------------------------- OS.756/2006 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ V.A.ABDUL RAZAK,AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. V.K.ABDULLA, VALIA VEETTIL HOUSE V.K.TOWERS, T.A. BEERANKUNJU ROAD ERNAKULAM NORTH. BY ADV. SRI.SHAHUL HAMEED MOOPPAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. K.M.KURIAN ,ADVOCATE, AGED 73 YEARS S/O.K.P.MATHEW ,RESIDING AT HOUSE 41/1694 VEESHANAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH COHIN 682018. 2. KUNHIKRISHNAN,AGED 67 YEARS UNNIPARAMBATH HOUSE NO. 35/919,SRUTHY, POWER HOUSE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM. 3. MRS. VASANTHY KRISHNAN,AGED 61 YEARS W/O.KUNHI KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT DO..DO.. 4. M.PRADEEP, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN,RESIDING AT DO..DO... BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8057 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam in I.A.No.915/08 in O.S.No.756/06. It was an application filed for the issuance of a Commission which had been dismissed by the court below. 2. I had perused the plaint. The suit is one for declaring a document as null and void and also for accounting process. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had executed a power of attorney in favour of the first defendant and he had borrowed a sum of Rs.15 lakhs and without his knowledge, the first defendant had assigned the property in favour of defendants 2 to 4 for consideration of Rs.26 lakhs and therefore, the whole transaction is invalid and therefore, he prays for declaring the document as null and void and also for recovery of possession and further for accounting. The first defendant would contend that he had really purchased the property for Rs.15 lakhs and he has sold the property to somebody else for Rs.17 lakhs and it was WPC 8057/2008 2 further sold for Rs.26 lakhs. 3. I am not going into the merits or demerits of the case considering the nature of the contentions raised in the suit. It is not the value of the property that is a ground for setting aside the document as void and therefore, the court below was right in holding that the commission need not be issued. The learned counsel would contend that the matter is listed and the parties may be permitted to adduce evidence. I direct the court below to give sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence in the suit in support of their contentions. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl