VADAKKE KUDIYIL ROSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) The reliefs are founded on the following facts:

(3.) The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, refuting the allegations and contending that even though Ext.P1 sale deed was executed by him, that was never acted upon and never intended to be acted upon. That, the sale consideration was never paid by the petitioner and as such, Ext.P1 is not legally valid or enforceable. It is stated that in the year 1996, the petitioner had executed a power of attorney in favour of another brother named Joy Paul. Ext.P1 cancellation deed was executed with the consent and knowledge of Joy Paul; the power of attorney holder. The 5th respondent claims to have been in uninterrupted possession of the property, in spite of execution Ext.P1 sale deed. It is contended that the petitioner's remedy, as against registration of the cancellation deed, is before the Civil Court. That, the time prescribed for availing civil remedy having lapsed, no relief could be granted by exercising the discretion vested with this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.