HARIDAS S/O.CHATHUNNI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.

(2.) PETITIONER says that he is the absolute owner of 44.875 cents of land in Sy.No.89/6 of Kaipamangalam Village. According to the petitioner, he gave a Power of Attorney to one Sri.V.S.Pradeep Kumar, who agreed to raise some funds for his brother-in-law Sri.Gireesh. It is his case that the requirement of Sri.Gireesh was of Rs.5 lakhs. It is stated that instead of utilising the Power of Attorney for raising the funds required by his brother-in-law, Sri.Pradeep Kumar mortgaged the petitioner's property on the strength of the Power of Attorney to enable one Mr.Sajeevan and his wife Smt.Deepa to receive the prize amounts in four kuries subscribed by them with the 4th respondent.

(3.) ON behalf of the 4th respondent, a statement has been filed which gives the details of the kuries subscribed by Sri.Sajeevan and Smt.Deepa. According to the 4th respondent, when the property of the petitioner was sought to be mortgaged on the strength of Power of Attorney, they had confirmed about the genuineness of the Power of Attorney by issuing Annexure A1 to the petitioner. It is stated that when default was committed, they were entitled to initiate recovery action against the defaulters and that it was therefore that the recovery proceedings are continued. It is also stated that Sri.Sajeevan, one of the defaulter had earlier filed WP(C) No. 26439/12 before this Court and obtained judgment dated 8/11/12 permitting him to make an initial payment of Rs.2 lakhs and to pay the balance in 9 equal monthly instalments. It is submitted that accordingly Sri.Sajeevan has paid Rs.2 lakhs on 29/11/12.