SATHYAN MURIYANKANDATHIL Vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACRES of land originally belonged to late Padmanabhan. Padmanabhan left behind his wife and seven children. Petitioner and the fourth respondent are brothers and children of late Padmanabhan. The third respondent is the wife of the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner, the second respondent is the friend of the fourth respondent.

(2.) PETITIONER says that being a legal heir of deceased Padmanabhan, he has inherited his share in the aforesaid 8 acres. It is also his case that during 1993 to 1999, he was working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is stated that in June, 2012, the petitioner received Ext.P1 notice issued by an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri, on an application filed by the first respondent bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act informing him that the Commissioner would be visiting the property including his share to take over possession of the same.

(3.) IN this writ petition, petitioner contends that the power of attorney on the basis of which, his share in the property was alienated by the fourth respondent is a fabricated document in as much as he was not even in India as on 24.09.1996 when the document was allegedly executed. To substantiate this contention, the petitioner has produced a photocopy of his passport as Ext.P6 and the original of the passport issued on 22.04.1992 was also produced before this Court.