UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. ALICE ULAHANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal is filed under Sec. 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by respondents 2 and 3 in O.P. (DRT) No.180 of 2025 challenging the judgment dtd. 26/6/2025, whereby the original petition filed by the 1st respondent herein/petitioner was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with the following directions:

(2.) The 1st respondent-petitioner filed the original petition through her next friend, stating that the 1st respondent has been mentally disabled since birth. According to the 1st respondent, her father died intestate. By Annexure A3 partition deed bearing No.2932 of 1988 of S.R.O. Puthencruz dtd. 19/8/1988, the immovable properties belonging to the father of the 1st respondent were partitioned between his three children, including the 1st respondent. But, the signatories to Annexure A3 partition deed are the 1st respondent's brothers and her mother. The mother of the 1st respondent signed that document on behalf of the 1st respondent as her guardian. As per Annexure A3 partition deed, the 'A' schedule property having an extent of 20.24 Ares in different survey numbers was allotted to the share of the 1st respondent's brother Pappachan, wherein life interest was reserved to the 1st respondent, permitting her to reside in the house situated therein during her lifetime. The 'B' schedule property in the partition deed was allotted to the 1st respondent's another brother John. The 'C' schedule property having an extent of 20.24 Ares in different survey numbers, was allotted to the share of the 1st respondent. Though the mother of the 1st respondent signed in Annexure A3 partition deed on behalf of the 1st respondent, she has not obtained permission from the Court of law to effect the transfer of immovable properties of the 1st respondent. Later, the brother of the 1st respondent, namely Pappachan and mother Sara, executed Annexure A4 Power of Attorney dtd. 21/2/1988 in favour of Chinamma, authorising the Power of Attorney holder to sell the 'A' schedule property to one Basil N. Paul, the 3rd respondent herein. On the strength of Annexure A4 Power of Attorney, Chinamma executed Annexure A5 sale deed No. 820/1998 of SRO, Puthencruz dtd. 24/2/1998 in favour of the 3rd respondent, parting the 'A' schedule property in Annexure A3 partition deed, including the life interest of the 1st respondent. Subsequently, some other conveyances were also effected in respect of the property, and finally, the entire 'A' schedule property in Annexure A3 partition deed was re-conveyed in the name of the 3rd respondent. It was later understood that the 'C' Schedule property in Annexure A3 partition deed, which was allotted to the share of the 1st respondent was also parted with by her relatives without obtaining the permission of the Court. Annexure A3 partition deed itself is a void document since it was executed without obtaining necessary permission from the authority concerned appointed under the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation, and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999, or from the Court concerned under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent.