IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 RFA.No. 80 of 2003(B) ------------------------ OS.1251/1995 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/DEFENDANT(S): --------------------------- JILLIARIAN D'CRUZ, T.C. 12/1707, KUNNUKUZHI, UNIVERSITY ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S)PLAINTIFFS : ------------------------------------ 1. MIRANDA SERENE.M., CHRISTIAN, RESIDING AT NO.34/HYTHE ROAD, SINGAPORE. 2. EDGAR MONSHAL MIRANDA, RESIDING AT NO.34/HYTHE ROAD, SINGAPORE. (REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, HUDY MIRANDA, RESIDING AT SERENE, T.C.11/1220, POTTAKUZHI, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.) ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R1 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.F.A. NO. 80 OF 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in O.S.1251/95. The suit is for a direction to the defendant to surrender vacant possession of the plaint schedule property and for an injunction. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to the mother of the plaintiffs' and on her death it had devolved upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are permanent residents of Singapore. They have executed a power of attorney in favour of the defendant on 24.11.88 for management of the property and the building therein. The defendant did not look after the property well and started misappropriating the income and did not send any account regarding the income and R.F.A. 80 OF 2003 -:2:- expenditure. Therefore the plaintiffs' revoked the power of attorney given to the defendant by revocation deed dated 9.5.94. This was intimated on 12.5.94. Thereafter the power of attorney has been given in the name of one Smt.Juddy Miranda for the management of the plaint schedule property. In spite of her request the defendant refused to hand over possession and therefore the suit. 2. On the contra, the defendant would contend the suit is instituted unauthorizedly as the 2nd plaintiff is mentally infirm. She is suffering from Schizophrenia. The power of attorney signed by the said person is sham. The defendant has effected repairs and renovation to the building costing Rs.2 lakhs. He had leased out the property for Rs.300/-. The plaintiffs have only sent Rs.10,000/- and therefore he is entitled to get the balance amount. 3. In the trial Court PW1 and DW1 were examined. Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 and B2 were marked. R.F.A. 80 OF 2003 -:3:- On an analysis the trial Court granted a decree. It is against that decision the appeal has been filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent. The first point agitated before the trial Court is regarding the entitlement of the plaintiffs' to hold the property in India. According to the defendant unless permission is obtained from the Reserve Bank of India it is not valid. The trial Court had considered that point and also the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Piara Singh v. Jagtar Singh (AIR 1987 Punjab and Haryana 93). Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a person cannot acquire the property without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India but nevertheless held that the title of the property will not be lost and therefore one cannot hold that the plaintiffs are not having title to the property. Further in this case it has to be held that it is not an acquisition but a devolution which has taken by operation of law. So that R.F.A. 80 OF 2003 -:4:- will also make the question here that the whole thing is not invalid. Therefore rightly the trial Court rejected that contention. 5. The second contention is to the effect that the 2nd plaintiff is a person suffering from Schizophrenia and therefore he cannot execute a valid power of attorney. It is a settled principle that Schizophrenia is an ailment which is not continuous and it is of some time with periodical lucid intervals. So unless and until one is able to establish that this person was Schizophreninic at the time of the alleged execution of the document one cannot invalidate it. Further it has also to be remembered that the power of attorney was cancelled by paper publication making it known to the whole public about the invalidity of the same. Therefore there had been a proper cancellation of the power of attorney and so the defendant's contention that the power of attorney cannot be considered to be as cancelled is also R.F.A. 80 OF 2003 -:5:- not acceptable. His locusstandi is only to hold the property as power of attorney holder and immediately when the power of attorney is revoked he ceased to have interest in the property and therefore he is bound to give back the property to the persons who have entrusted it to him. Therefore the trial Court was absolutely justified in doing that also. 6. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that he had effected renovations and repairs in the house and therefore he must be granted an amount of Rs.2 lakhs for the same. It is true that by the provisions of the Power of Attorney an authorization is given to the defendant to effect repairs and maintenance to the house. But when he had put up a case of repair and maintenance it is for him to prove it by satisfactory evidence. There is no evidence tendered in this regard except his mere ipse dixit which would not be sufficient to prove the case when it is R.F.A. 80 OF 2003 -:6:- specifically denied by the other side. So that also does not call for any interference. Therefore the judgment and decree are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed but under the circumstances without any order as to costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- ul/- R.F.A. 80 OF 2003 -:7:- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = R.F.A. No. 80 OF 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 26th October, 2010.