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. 25427 of 2008(B) -------------------------- OA.196/2006 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 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. PANJOS 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, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O.,ALUVA. 5. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR KOCHI-36 BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.25427 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This matter has been filed today and moved at 1.45 p.m. This morning, I have dismissed a writ petition filed by the daughter of the petitioner. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 availed a loan from the third respondent and mortgaged an item of property as security for that loan. On default in repayment, the third respondent initiated proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and obtained a recovery certificate. That was enforced through the 5th respondent recovery officer, resulting in a sale. The 4th respondent purchased it in that auction. It was also noticed by me in the judgment delivered this morning that the said sale was confirmed and sale certificate was issued in favour of the 4th respondent. WPC.25427/08 Page numbers 3. It appears that the mortgaged property originally belonged to the petitioner and it was transfered to respondents 1 and 2 on the basis of a power of attorney executed by the petitioner. In this writ petition, it is stated that he had executed the registered power of attorney to one Paul Mathew, Piravom and that the said person has essentially deceived the petitioner by making the transfer in favour of respondents 1 and 2. The said person is not a party to this writ petition. Not only that, it is not possible for this Court to come to the aid of the petitioner on any alleged fraud or other vitiating circumstances affecting the transfer of property from the petitioner to respondents 1 and 2, before respondents 1 and 2 created security interest in favour of the third respondent. 4. The circumstances pointed out in the writ petition relatable to the health of the petitioner were matters which I had noticed even in the writ petition filed by the petitioner's daughter which was dismissed this morning. WPC.25427/08 Page numbers 5. Having regard to what is aforesaid, I do not find any ground for this Court to interfere and issue any direction or order in spite of the fact that the petitioner has also a plea that his son is presently employed abroad and will be able to pay off the outstandings. I have noticed in the judgment delivered today morning that the 4th respondent and the petitioner were unable to have a peaceful resolution of the disputes between them. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner, if any, for appropriate proceedings in relation to any complaint he has regarding the alleged abuse of the power of attorney executed by him. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.26/8.