A E GOVINDAN NAMBOOTHIRI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having looked into the materials and having regard to the directions being issued hereunder, we do not deem it necessary to issue notice to the 4th respondent. We, therefore, preserve the right of the 4th respondent to move for re-hearing of the writ petition, if aggrieved by the order being rendered hereunder.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.

(3.) The 4th respondent is a son of the first petitioner and the second petitioner is the grand son of the first petitioner through another son. According to the first petitioner, he settled certain properties by retaining the life estate. He has thereafter executed power of attorney in favour of the second petitioner for taking usufructs. Going by the pleadings and materials, it appears that the first petitioner is a senior citizen, aged around 87 years.