Sidharthan vs Sindhu Sidharthan on 19 August, 2025

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sidharthan vs Sindhu Sidharthan on 19 August, 2025

The appellant, Sidharthan, is the husband of the first respondent, Sindhu Sidharthan. He was engaged in own business abroad. He had executed a general Power of Attorney in her favour, authorising her to manage all his assets in Kerala, including various immovable properties. The Power of Attorney enabled sale of the properties. Subsequently, suspecting that the first respondent might misuse the authority so conferred, the appellant revoked the Power of Attorney. Upon realising that the Power of Attorney was about to be revoked, Sindhu Sidharthan, Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 12 2025:KER:61859 acting on the strength of the said Power of Attorney, executed several sale deeds transferring various items of immovable properties to the second respondent, Mevis Davies, and to other persons. She also transferred some properties in her own name. Alleging that the first and second respondents had fraudulently created these sale deeds to defeat the appellant's interests, the appellant approached the Family Court, Thrissur, by filing various petitions challenging the validity of the said conveyances. The Family Court partly upheld his claims. With regard to the sale deeds in favour of Mevis Davis it was found that Sindhu Sidharthan was liable to pay the corresponding sale consideration to the appellant, the transfers she had effected in her own name were set aside. It held that the second respondent, Mevis Davies, was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the revocation of the Power of Attorney. In the present appeals, the appellant challenges the finding in favour of the second respondent, Mevis Davies. The first respondent remained ex Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 13 2025:KER:61859 parte before the trial court and has not preferred any challenge to the judgment.

2. The appellant contends that he has been engaged in various businesses in the United Arab Emirates for the past three decades, and from the income derived therefrom, he acquired several immovable properties in the districts of Thrissur and Alappuzha. From humble beginnings as a hotel worker, he rose to become a successful businessman. The appellant, who has no formal education and hails from a poor family, entrusted the management of his assets to the first respondent, his wife, who is well-educated, holding a Master's degree in Commerce and a Law degree. Reposing complete faith and confidence in her, he relied upon her to conduct all transactions in Kerala with fidelity and prudence. During his stay abroad, the first respondent managed all his business affairs in Kerala, including a seven-storeyed star hotel at Thrissur known as "Hotel Sidhartha Regency." For this purpose, the appellant Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 14 2025:KER:61859 had executed a Power of Attorney, attested at the Indian Embassy in the UAE, in her favour to enable her to manage the properties effectively, as a trustee.

3. Subsequently, the first respondent represented to him that, for more effective management, a registered Power of Attorney was necessary. Acting on this request, the appellant executed and registered the above said general Power of Attorney (Ext. A49) on 24.06.2006 at the Anthikkad Sub-Registrar's Office, Thrissur, authorising her to deal with all his immovable properties and to operate his bank accounts. According to the appellant, by that time, the first respondent had already entered into a conspiracy with the second respondent, Mevis Davies, to misappropriate his assets. Later, certain suspicious conduct on the part of the first respondent gave rise to a serious erosion of trust. On 05.02.2007, the appellant telephoned her, orally revoking the Power of Attorney and instructing her to act only in accordance with his Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 15 2025:KER:61859 specific directions. She responded by threatening to dispose of the properties as she pleased, relying on the Power of Attorney. Consequently, the appellant returned to India on 07.02.2007. Accompanied by his friend V.V. Joy and a staff member of Hotel Sidhartha Regency, he straightaway went to the residence of the first respondent and informed her that the Power of Attorney was going to be cancelled that very morning. He then proceeded to the Anthikkad Sub-Registrar's Office and, at 10:30 a.m., executed a cancellation deed (Ext. A50). As a further precaution, he issued a registered notice to the first respondent, intimating the cancellation, and also telephoned her at 11:00 a.m. on the same day to convey that he had cancelled the deed. The appellant alleges that the first respondent, in collusion with the postman, delayed receipt of the registered notice, despite an intimation of the postal article having been served on her that day. Upon learning of this, the appellant caused a public notice of the cancellation to be published in the Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 16 2025:KER:61859 Rashtradeepika daily on 08.02.2007, followed by a similar notice in the Mathrubhumi daily on 09.02.2007. Thereafter, he returned to the UAE. By that time, without his knowledge, the first respondent had already created sale deeds pertaining to the land on which the hotel stands into her own name and conveyed a portion of it to the second respondent. Similarly, she created sale deeds in favour of the second respondent in respect of certain other valuable properties.

4. On 17.09.2007, the first respondent allegedly telephoned the appellant and threatened him not to interfere in her business or property dealings, asserting that he had lost all his landed properties in his native place. Prompted by this, the appellant caused an enquiry to be conducted through his friend, V.V. Joy, whereupon he discovered, to his shock, that the first respondent had fraudulently executed multiple sale deeds in respect of several of his immovable properties. According to the Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 17 2025:KER:61859 appellant, these documents were executed for namesake, without any genuine intention to convey title, and solely with a view to defeat his interests. No consideration was paid to him in respect of any of the said transactions, and that the first respondent had never informed him about such transactions. The sale prices recited in those deeds were far below the prevailing market value and, in truth, no consideration whatsoever had passed; and thus, they were mere sham transactions. The appellant asserts that the properties covered by those documents remain in his possession through the first respondent, and that he has continued to pay the land tax thereon. On these pleadings, the appellant sought cancellation of the respective sale deeds, with an alternative prayer for monetary compensation equivalent to the actual market value of the land. He further prayed for a prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession over the said properties. As one of the properties purportedly transferred to the second Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 18 2025:KER:61859 respondent had been further transferred by him to one Sachidananda Menon on 02.01.2007, the appellant impleaded Sachidananda Menon as the third respondent and sought cancellation of the subsequent transfer.

5. The first respondent, who remained ex parte during the trial, nevertheless filed a counter statement denying all the allegations levelled against her. She asserted that the transactions in question were perfectly valid, supported by due consideration, and effected in accordance with the appellant's instructions and under the authority of the Power of Attorney. She contended that she managed the appellant's properties not as a trustee but as his agent, and that she had no knowledge of the cancellation of the Power of Attorney on 07.02.2007. It was further claimed that the properties transferred to the second respondent, Mevis Davies, are now in his absolute ownership and possession, and that the sale consideration had been duly paid to the appellant. She denied any Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 19 2025:KER:61859 collusion, fraud, or conspiracy between herself and the second respondent. The second respondent, adopting similar contentions, furnished particulars of the sale prices allegedly paid by him under the respective sale deeds. He further alleged that the petitions had been filed by the appellant in collusion with his wife with the intent to defeat his lawful rights. Sachidananda Menon also contended that he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration.

6. All the cases were jointly tried and disposed of by a common order passed by the learned Family Judge. On behalf of the appellant, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts. A1 to A84 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 to RW12 were examined and Exts. B1 to B106 were marked. Ext. X1 series to Ext. X14 and Ext. C1, the interim commission report, were also brought on record during the trial.

Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 20 2025:KER:61859

7. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by both sides, the learned Family Judge concluded that the second respondent, Mevis Davies, is a bona fide purchaser and that the sale deeds executed in his favour are not liable to be set aside. However, the court held that the first respondent is bound to pay to the appellant the sale consideration recited in the said documents. The court further set aside the conveyances executed by Sindhu Sidharthan in her own name, finding that the Power of Attorney had been revoked prior to the execution of those transactions.

8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondents.

9. In view of the rival contentions, the following points arise for determination:

(i) Whether the sale deeds executed by the first respondent, as Power of Attorney holder Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 21 2025:KER:61859 of the appellant, in favour of the second respondent, are valid and binding on the appellant?

(ii) Whether the third respondent in Mat.

Appeal No. 1295 of 2015 is a bona fide purchaser; and if so, whether the appellant is entitled to any compensation from the other respondents?

10. Except for the transfer effected under Ext. A34, the conveyances executed by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent as well as those executed in her own name, were carried out within a span of a few hours after the registered Power of Attorney had been revoked. Therefore, the sequence of events, and the interconnection between them, assume considerable significance in determining whether the respondents had acted in collusion and had fraudulently brought into existence the impugned documents.

Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 22 2025:KER:61859

11. Let us first examine these transactions in detail to consider whether the first respondent was aware that the Power of Attorney was cancelled when she executed those deeds. On 07.02.2007, the appellant reached Thrissur in the morning flight. Immediately at 10:30 a.m., the appellant executed Ext.A50, a registered deed of cancellation of the Power of Attorney, before the Sub Registrar, Anthikkad. Despite this revocation, on the same day at 11:30 a.m., the first respondent executed Ext. A9 sale deed at the Sub Registrar's Office, Thrissur, purporting to convey 11 cents of land, being the car parking area of Hotel Sidhartha Regency, which was one of the appellant's most valuable assets, to the second respondent. Again, on the same day, at 12:20 p.m., she executed Ext. A23 sale deed before the Sub Registrar, Peramangalam, transferring 2.6 acres of land to the second respondent. On the following day, 08.02.2007, at 3:25 p.m., she executed Ext. A20 sale deed before the Sub Registrar, Thrissur, conveying 32 cents of land to the Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 23 2025:KER:61859 second respondent.

12. In addition to the transactions already noted, the first respondent had executed three further sale deeds in her own name by invoking her authority as the Power of Attorney holder of the appellant. Two of them were made on 07.02.2007, one at 11.22 a.m. and the other at 3.05 p.m. We will go to the details of these transactions later.

13. According to the appellant, he had orally informed the first respondent on 05.02.2007 of his decision to revoke the Power of Attorney. On 07.02.2007, having arrived at Thrissur from the United Arab Emirates, he went directly to meet her in the presence of two witnesses. He deposed that after executing the cancellation deed, he intimated the revocation to her over the telephone. He further stated that, on the same day, a registered notice (Ext. A51) was dispatched to her and Ext.A54 postal intimation of which was served on her on that day itself. Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 24 2025:KER:61859 The appellant, examined as PW1, gave evidence which we find to be reliable and convincing on these aspects. Despite prolonged cross-examination, his version remained unshaken. The fact that he issued the registered notice on 07.02.2007 and caused newspaper publications to be made in the succeeding days (Ext. A55 series) lends substantial corroboration to his testimony. While cancelling the transfers made by the first respondent in her own favour, the trial court has also concluded that the first respondent had clear knowledge of the cancellation of the Power of Attorney when she executed all those deeds. We find no reason either to disbelieve him on these matters or to deviate from the findings of the Family Court in this regard.

14. In addition to this, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this fact had been found by this court in Ext. A79 judgment, which was also between the appellant and the first respondent, Sindhu Sidharthan, Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 25 2025:KER:61859 in Mat. Appeal No. 436/2013, a case stoutly contested by the first respondent. The learned counsel invited our attention to paragraphs 28 to 30 of the said judgment wherein it is held as follows:

"28. Therefore, if the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 4 is appreciated in its totality, it can be seen that their evidence is consistent on material facts, such as the arrival of the respondent in Kerala on the morning on 07.02.2007, that he and PW3 reached the hotel straight from the airport, that from there, along with PWs.3 and 4, the respondent went to the apartment of the appellant, that in the presence of PWs.3 and 4, he informed the appellant that he was going to cancel of Ext.A10, that thereafter PWs.1 and 3 proceeded to the Anthikad Sub Registry, got Ext.A1 registered and that thereafter, in the presence of PW3, PW1 phoned up the appellant and informed her of having revoked Ext.A10 power of attorney by Ext.A1 document.

29.The issue whether the appellant had notice of cancellation of Ext.A10 power of attorney before executing Ext.A8 on 8.2.2007 is another aspect of the matter which is required to be considered. Earlier, an unregistered power of attorney was executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant at the Indian Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 26 2025:KER:61859 Embassy, Dubai. According to him, the appellant had impressed upon him the necessity to have a registered power of attorney to discharge her duties as his agent and it was in such circumstances that he executed Ext.A10 registered power of attorney in her favour. Soon after the cancellation of Ext.A10 power of attorney, on 7.2.2007 itself, counsel for the respondent issued Exts.A2 and A3 notices to the appellant. By Ext.A2, she was informed of the revocation of the unregistered power of attorney and by Ext.A3 notice, she was informed that by Ext.A1, Ext.A10 registered power of attorney was revoked.

30.These notices were sent by registered post to the appellant from the Railway Station Post Office, Trichur under registered post acknowledgement due, the numbers of which are 1523 and 1524. The acknowledgement cards of these notices and the other notices sent by the respondent to the appellant are produced as Ext.A5 series. Ext.A9 is an information obtained under the Right To Information Act from the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Thrissur Division, Thrissur -1. In this document, it is stated that intimations regarding registered letter Nos.1523 and 1524 were given to Smt.Sindhu Sidharthan, the appellant, on 7.2.2007 itself. It is also stated in this document that the registered letter Nos.1523 and 1524 and two other registered letters from Thrissur RS Post Office were tendered on the above addressee on 12.2.2007 and it was one P.Sudheer who received Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 27 2025:KER:61859 the above notices on authorisation. The fact that Exts.A2 and A3 were received by the representative of the appellant on 12.2.2007 is also evident from Ext.A5 series of acknowledgement cards, which contains the signature of the recipient and the date of receipt is shown as 12.2.2007. Therefore, from these documents, it is clear that Exts.A2 and A3 notices of revocation of the power of attorney were delivered on the appellant on 7.2.2007 itself and that on account of the failure of her authorised representative to receive the notices, intimations were given and that the registered letters were received by her representative only on 12.2.2007. She has not given any satisfactory explanation why Exts.A2 and A3 notices were not received on 7.2.2007 or why its receipt was delayed till 12.2.2007."

Sindhu Sidharthan challenged the aforesaid judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; however, her Special Leave Petition was dismissed. In the present case the said fact stands independently established through the testimony of the appellant. Even from the tearing hurry shown by the first respondent in creating the above deeds on 07.02.2007 and 08.02.2007, it can be inferred that she was aware that Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 28 2025:KER:61859 the appellant cancelled Ext.A49. It is interesting to note that even when Sidharthan has categorically stated in the proof affidavit that Sindhu Sidharthan had received the postal intimation regarding the registered notice sent by Sidharthan in respect of the cancellation of the power of attorney, the above statement remains unchallenged in cross examination by both the respondents. Therefore, it can be concluded that the first respondent was aware, at the time of executing Exts. A9, A20, and A23 sale deeds in favour of the second respondent, that the Power of Attorney had already been revoked. She had also become aware, as early as 05.02.2007, that the appellant intended to cancel the Power of Attorney at any moment.

15. Let us now consider the question whether those transactions were fictitious and intended to defraud the appellant. During the course of the hearing, Sri. Rajit, learned counsel for the appellant, painstakingly guided us through the various transactions effected by the first Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 29 2025:KER:61859 respondent after obtaining the registered Power of Attorney, in an effort to demonstrate that fraud and collusion between the first and second respondents is manifest from the very nature of those dealings. According to him, Sindhu Sidharthan and Mevis Davies had acted in concert, from the time the registered Power of Attorney was procured, with the object of defeating the appellant's interests. He submitted that a close scrutiny of the transactions between them, coupled with their respective banking operations, would reveal the fraudulent design beyond doubt. It was further contended that the first and second respondents acted in unison and in undue haste to divest the appellant of his most valuable assets before the Power of Attorney could be cancelled--an inference, he argued, that emerges clearly from the very sequence of the documents they executed.

16. The following transactions were made by Sindhu Sidharthan on 07/02/2007 and 08/02/2007, after the Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 30 2025:KER:61859 cancellation of the Power of Attorney :

SL. DATE & TIME EXECUTED BY IN DOCUMENT DATE OF NO. OF WHOM, VALUE FAVOUR PURCHAS EXECUTION SHOWN & OF WHOM E OF OF DEED MODE OF STAMP TRANSFER OF PAPER CONSIDERATI FOR THE ON SALE DEED 1 07/02/2007 Sidharthan Cancelled 30/2007 SRO NA 10.30 AM Ext.A49 Anthikkad Power of (Ext.A50) Attorney in favour of Sindhu 2 07/02/2007 Sindhu Mevis 946/2007 SRO 06/02/07 11.20 AM 15,00,000/- Davies Thrissur (Bank (Ext.A9) Transfer) 3 07/02/2007 Sindhu Sindhu 947/2007 SRO 06/02/07 11.22 AM 10,00,000/- Thrissur (Cash) (Ext.A17) Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 31 2025:KER:61859 4 07/02/2007 Sindhu Mevis 564/2007 SRO 06/02/07 12.20 PM 6,60,000/- Davies Peramangalam (Bank (Ext.A23) Transfer) 5 07/02/2007 Sindhu Sindhu & 295/2007, 06/02/07 03.05 PM 10,00,000/- children SRO (Cash) Vadanappilly (Ext.A25) 6 08/02/2007 Sindhu Mevis 1026/2007 08/02/07 3.25 PM 3,70,000/- Davies SRO Thrissur (Cash) (Ext.A20) 7 08/02/2007 Sindhu Sindhu 1027/2007 08/02/07 3.27 PM 26,00,000/- SRO Thrissur (Cash) (Ext.A3) When we closely scrutinise the above transactions, there appears to be considerable force in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The first circumstance consistent with the appellant's case is that Sindhu Sidharthan and Mevis Davies purchased all the Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 32 2025:KER:61859 requisite stamp papers for executing the impugned conveyances only on 06.02.2007, 07.02.2007 or 08.02.2007, and not earlier. This fact is evident from an examination of the sale deeds. Mevis Davies also admitted this in cross-examination. Ordinarily, it will be very difficult to arrange stamp papers for all such high-value transfers in such a short span of time. It has already been concluded that Sindhu Sidharthan had clear and definite knowledge that Sidharthan was soon arriving in India to cancel the Power of Attorney. Indeed, Sidharthan had disclosed his intention to revoke the Power of Attorney to the first respondent on 05.02.2007 itself. The question that now arises is whether the surrounding circumstances are sufficient to establish that the second respondent was also in possession of such knowledge, and whether both the respondents colluded in the execution of the sale deeds.

17. A significant circumstance in this regard is the remarkable proximity in time within which all the sale deeds were executed. On 07.02.2007, Sindhu Sidharthan Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 33 2025:KER:61859 executed Ext.A9 sale deed in favour of Mevis Davies at 11.20 a.m. at the SRO, Thrissur, concerning the car parking area of Sidhartha Regency. The time of execution is recorded on page 5 of Exhibit A9 as 11.20 a.m. Notably, Ext.A50 cancellation deed had been executed at the SRO, Anthikkad, at 10.30 a.m., barely fifty minutes earlier. Further, at 11.22 a.m.--a mere two minutes after executing Exhibit A9--Sindhu Sidharthan executed Ext.A17 sale deed in her own name at the same SRO, Thrissur. Later that day, at 12.20 p.m., she executed Ext.A23 sale deed at the SRO, Peramangalam, transferring 2.06 acres of land to Mevis Davies. Again, on the same day at 3.05 p.m., she executed another sale deed, Ext.A25, in her own name together with her children, at the SRO, Vadanapally. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the distance between Thrissur and Peramangalam Sub Registrar's Office is approximately 15 kilometres, and the distance from Peramangalam to Vadanapally is about 25 kilometres.

18. Significantly, Mevis Davies attested one of the Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 34 2025:KER:61859 aforesaid deeds in favour of Sindhu Sidharthan - Ext.A25, registered at the SRO, Vadanapally, on 07.02.2007--as an identifying witness. This strongly suggests that Sindhu Sidharthan and Mevis Davies travelled together from Thrissur to Peramangalam and thereafter to Vadanapally, executing the documents in a hurried and concerted manner. The learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed out that all six conveyance deeds referred to in the above chart were prepared by the same document writer, reinforcing the inference of a premeditated plan.

19. On the very next day, i.e., 08.02.2007, Sindhu Sidharthan executed two further documents in favour of Mevis Davies at the SRO, Thrissur, at 3.25 p.m. and 3.27 p.m., as per Exts.A20 and A3 respectively. Ext.A3 purports to transfer Hotel Sidhartha Regency to Mevis Davies. By this time, Sidharthan had not only informed the first respondent of the cancellation of the Power of Attorney but had also dispatched a registered notice to her and taken steps to publish an advertisement in the Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 35 2025:KER:61859 Rashtradeepika daily. His evidence further indicates that Sindhu Sidharthan evaded service of the registered notice by influencing the postal peon. These actions unmistakably reveal that she was in a blazing hurry to execute the sale deeds despite the Power of Attorney having been revoked, seeking to take advantage of legal provisions which protect transfers where the agent or third party has no knowledge of the cancellation. It is pertinent that she is a law graduate. The fact that Sindhu Sidharthan and Mevis Davies executed four registered conveyance deeds, at three different Sub Registrar Offices located at considerable distances from each other, within less than four hours from the time of cancellation, clearly demonstrates mutual cooperation and a deliberate attempt to perform all acts within their reach to defeat the legal effect of such cancellation. This strongly supports an inference of a concerted agreement to commit wrongful and illegal acts.

20. Another striking feature is that there was no prior agreement for sale in respect of any of the sale Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 36 2025:KER:61859 deeds executed in favour of Mevis Davies, notwithstanding the fact that Sindhu Sidharthan and Mevis Davies claim to have executed agreements for sale in relation to other comparatively minor transactions between them. The details of such agreements will be discussed at a later stage.

21. The evidence further reveals that the second respondent did not obtain encumbrance certificates from the Sub Registrar's Office for the properties transferred on 07.02.2007 or 08.02.2007. His explanation was that he personally visited the Sub Registrar's Office to verify whether there were any encumbrances. The learned counsel for the second respondent attempted to justify this, stating that, for a busy and seasoned real estate businessman like Mevis Davies, direct verification might be more convenient than formally applying for an encumbrance certificate. However, the registration law mandates that a search or verification in the Registry can only be undertaken upon a formal application. Despite a serious challenge to this aspect, Mevis Davies failed to Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 37 2025:KER:61859 produce any record showing that such verification had actually been carried out. Similarly, he did not produce any records to show that he had measured out the lands in question prior to the execution of the sale deeds.

22. In any event, the fact that the second respondent procured the execution of four sale deeds from the first respondent within a 24-hour period, without any prior agreement for sale and without obtaining encumbrance certificates, itself casts grave suspicion on his conduct, particularly when the Power of Attorney had already been cancelled with due notice to Sindhu Sidharthan.

23. Other circumstances add to these misgivings. On 24.06.2006, the appellant executed Ext. A49 Power of Attorney in favour of his wife before the Sub Registrar, Anthikkad. Acting under this authority, on 01.08.2006, the first respondent executed Ext. A34 sale deed in favour of the second respondent, Mevis Davies, for a consideration of ₹18,00,000/-, conveying 70 cents of land. Within five months, on 02.01.2007, the second respondent conveyed the Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 38 2025:KER:61859 said property to the third respondent in Mat.Appeal No. 1295 of 2015, under Ext. A35 sale deed, for a consideration of ₹50,00,000/-. Although it was argued that certain improvements were made to the land in the meanwhile, allegedly justifying the higher price, the evidence on record does not establish that any such substantial improvements were undertaken.

24. There is yet another circumstance that directly indicates collusion between the first and second respondents. On 07.02.2007 and 08.02.2007, Sindhu Sidharthan created 3 sale deeds in her name in respect of the property in which Hotel Sidhartha Regency is situated. The remaining part of the hotel property is a plot having 11 cents in extent, which was being used as its car parking area. This part of the land was conveyed to Mevis Davies by Sindhu Sidharthan on 07.02.2007 as per Ext. A9. It has come out in evidence that the hotel property has no other space for car parking other than the above said 11 cents. Mevis Davies admitted in cross-examination that to Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 39 2025:KER:61859 access the hotel from its kitchen, the only way is to go through this car parking area, or else, one has to use the public road by the other side of the hotel. In short, the said properties can only be used together, not independently. The very fact that Sindhu Sidharthan transferred such part of the hotel property to Mevis Davies, while conveying the remaining parts to herself, strongly indicates that they were acting in unison.

25. The money trail linking the first and second respondents further reinforces the inference of collusion and lends considerable weight to the appellant's allegations. On 24.07.2006, Sidharthan received a sum of ₹55,00,000/- pursuant to the execution of Ext.A37 sale deed in favour of EVM Fuels, as evidenced by Ext.X2, the statement of account of his bank account maintained with the Indian Bank, Thrissur Branch. On 26.07.2006, Sindhu Sidharthan, acting under the authority conferred by the Power of Attorney to operate Sidharthan's bank account, transferred ₹25,00,000/- to herself. The amount available in her account at that time was only Rs.59,717/-. On the very Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 40 2025:KER:61859 same day, she transferred the said sum of ₹25,00,000/- to Mevis Davies. This sequence of transactions is revealed upon a combined reading of Ext.X5, the statement of account pertaining to the bank account of Mevis Davies maintained with the Bank of India, Ayyanthole Branch, and Ext.X1(a), the statement of account relating to Sindhu Sidharthan's account with the Indian Bank, Thrissur Branch. At that time, the balance in the account of Mevis Davies stood at only ₹5,939.04. Upon receipt of the said sum, on 27.07.2006, Mevis Davies transferred ₹18,00,000/- to Sidharthan by cheque No. 27159, purportedly towards the sale consideration for Ext.A34 sale deed dated 01.08.2006. This is clear from the entries in Ext.X5, the statement of account of Mevis Davies, and Ext.X2, the statement of account of Sidharthan. In essence, the amount shown as consideration for the sale deed was nothing but money siphoned by the respondents from Sidharthan's own account. At that juncture, Sidharthan's account reflected a credit balance of ₹46,93,599/-. On the same day, 27.07.2006, Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 41 2025:KER:61859 Sindhu Sidharthan transferred ₹46,90,000/- from Sidharthan's account to her own, and immediately thereafter withdrew the entire sum in cash.

26. Ext.X5, the statement of account of Mevis Davies, further discloses that on 09.02.2007 he transferred ₹6,60,000/- and ₹15,00,000/- to Sidharthan, purportedly as the sale consideration for Exts.A23 and A9 sale deeds, respectively. The corresponding entries in Ext.X2, the statement of account of Sidharthan, and Ext.X1, the statement of account of Sindhu Sidharthan, reveal that the entire sum of ₹21,60,000/- was transferred to Sindhu Sidharthan's account on the same day, on the strength of Ext.A62 series letter issued by her to the Bank, being the Power of Attorney holder authorised to manage the bank account of the appellant. Ext.X1 further shows that, out of this amount, she withdrew ₹20,90,000/- in cash on the same day. With regard to Ext.A20 sale deed, it is admitted that Mevis Davies paid the purported sale consideration of ₹3,70,000/- directly in cash to Sindhu Sidharthan. This Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 42 2025:KER:61859 amount was never credited to Sidharthan's bank account. For clarity, the foregoing sequence of transactions is tabulated as follows:

24/07/06 Sidharthan receives Rs.55 lakhs in his bank account (Ext.X2) 26/07/06 Sindhu Sidharthan transfers Rs.25 lakhs from Sidharthan's account (Ext.X2) to her own account (Ext.X1(a)).

The same day Sindhu transfers Rs.25 lakhs from her account to the account of Mevis Davies (Ext.X5) 27/07/06 Mevis Davies transfers Rs.18 lakhs from his account (Ext.X5) to Sidharthan's account (Ext.X2). Before receiving Rs.25,00,0000/-, Mevis Davies had only Rs.5939.04 in his account.

The same way Sindhu Sidharthan transfers Rs.46,90,000/- from Sidharthan's account (Ext.X2) to her own account (Ext.X1(a)) and withdraws it.

09/02/07 Mevis Davies transfers Rs.21,60,000/- Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 43 2025:KER:61859 (Rs.6,60,000/-+ Rs.15,00,000/-) from his account (Ext.X5) to Sidharthan's account (Ext.X2).

The same way Sindhu Sidharthan transfers Rs.21,60,000/- from Sidharthan's account (Ext.X2) to her own account (Ext.X1(a)) by using Ext.A62 series letter to the Bank. Sindhu Sidharthan withdraws Rs.20,90,000/- from her own account as cash.

27. When Mevis Davies filed Ext.A84 counter affidavit in O.P.No.356/2008, he took the stand that he had no other transactions with Sindhu Sidharthan. The appellant, however, was able to establish that Sindhu Sidharthan and Mevis Davies had certain other transactions. Ext.X5, the statement of account of Mevis Davies, and Ext.X4, the subsequent-period statement of account of Sindhu Sidharthan, disclose other financial transactions between them. As per Ext.X5, on 12.08.2006 Mevis Davies transferred ₹25,00,000/- to Sindhu Sidharthan, which is corroborated by Ext.X1(a), the statement of account of Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 44 2025:KER:61859 Sindhu Sidharthan. Further, Ext.X4 records that on 16.01.2012 Sindhu Sidharthan transferred ₹5,00,000/- to Mevis Davies. Ordinarily, discrepancies in pleadings of this nature might not be of consequence if satisfactorily explained. However, the circumstances here are wholly different. The contradiction in his pleadings concerning the above transactions assumes considerable importance in assessing his conduct. It is significant that Mevis Davies has taken a definite contention that Sindhu Sidharthan and the appellant are colluding for undue gain while they actually remain on good terms. Upon perusal of the records and evidence, we have no hesitation in holding that this assertion of the second respondent is devoid of merit. This aspect will be discussed in detail at the later part of this judgment. Let us first analyse the above circumstances in the light of the contentions advanced by the second respondent.

28. Sri. P.B. Subramanyan, learned counsel for the second respondent, with commendable skill, marshalled Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 45 2025:KER:61859 various circumstances emerging from the evidence which, at first glance, appeared to decisively undermine the appellant's case. According to him, except in one instance

--where a sum of ₹3,70,000/- was paid in cash to the appellant's Power of Attorney holder--the second respondent had paid the sale consideration directly to the appellant through bank transactions. He contended that the second respondent had no knowledge of any alleged wrongful acts committed by the first respondent. By referring to Exts.B73 to B77, learned counsel sought to explain the circumstances surrounding the transfer of ₹25,00,000/- by Sindhu Sidharthan to Mevis Davies, and the latter's subsequent transfer of ₹5,00,000/- to her. While parties might be able to fabricate documents, it is not possible, he argued, to create antedated bank transactions. It was submitted that Sindhu Sidharthan had paid ₹25,00,000/- to Mevis Davies on 26.07.2006 as advance sale consideration for the purchase of a property for the appellant, and when that agreement failed, Mevis Davies refunded the amount to Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 46 2025:KER:61859 her on 11.08.2006, as evidenced by bank records. The learned counsel further argued that even when the second respondent paid sale consideration in cash, there was a corresponding bank transaction. Ext.X5, the statement of account of Mevis Davies, records a withdrawal of ₹4,00,000/- on 08.02.2007, out of which ₹3,70,000/- was allegedly paid in cash to Sindhu Sidharthan for executing Ext.A20 sale deed. Learned counsel further contended that there is nothing unusual in executing the above sale deeds on 07.07.2007 and 08.07.2007 as Sindhu Sidarthan had earlier executed sale deed at Alappuzha SRO on the previous day and on the next day she executed another sale deed at Thrissur in favour of Sharafudheen and his wife, but at present there is no challenge against those sale deeds. On the basis of these circumstances, it was submitted that the transactions entered into by Mevis Davies were genuine, and that, being a bona fide purchaser, he is entitled to the protection of Section 208 of the Contract Act.

Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 47 2025:KER:61859

29. First of all, Ext.B74--the purported agreement for sale--is dubious in every material respect. As already noted, in Ext.A84 counter affidavit, Mevis Davies unequivocally stated that he had no connection or transaction whatsoever with the first respondent other than the four sale transactions in question. It reads:

      "ഈ എത കക        4     ആധ രങൾ പ ക ര        മ ക യ ർക ര യ യ    2)o

      എത കക ഹർജ ക രന വ ണ രജ സപ               ക തന ആധ രങൾ പ ക ര

      4 ഭ$മ കൾ    ങ യ ട ണണനണത ഴ ണക യ ണത ര            ധ അ പവമ ബനവമ

      ഇല."

But when Exts.X1(a) and X5, the statements of account of Sindhu Sidharthan and Mevis Davies respectively, were produced before the Court, it came to light that Sindhu Sidharthan had transferred a sum of ₹25,00,000/- from the account of Sidharthan to Mevis Davies. On the top of that, while deposing before the Court, Mevis Davies, in his cross-examination, was constrained to admit that he had remitted the purchase price reflected in Ext.A34 sale deed Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 48 2025:KER:61859 from the amount so transferred from Sidharthan's account. Faced with this situation, Exts.B74 and B76 were fabricated by respondents 1 and 2 using blank stamp papers that were already in their possession, and were drafted in such a manner as to reconcile with the bank transactions between them; otherwise, the sequence of transactions would unerringly demonstrate that Ext.A34 was unsupported by any valid consideration, it is contended by the appellant.

30. As noted above, Ext.A74, on its face, is at the teeth of his own contradictory pleading. Apart from that, when we closely examine Ext.B74 and its stipulations, it reveals clear indications of mala fide intent. First, we describe the contents of the document for a clear understanding. Ext.B74 purports to be an agreement for sale entered into between Mevis Davies and Sidharthan, acting through his wife, who was his Power of Attorney holder. By this agreement, Mevis Davies undertook to sell 3.84 acres of land to Sidharthan for a total consideration Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 49 2025:KER:61859 of approximately ₹32.64 lakhs (at ₹8,500/- per cent). The amount stated to have been paid at the time of execution of the agreement was ₹10,000/-. The stamp paper, of the value of ₹50/-, was purchased in the name of Sindhu Sidharthan on 25.05.2006. The agreement itself bears the same date, and stipulates that the period for performance would expire within two months, namely, on 25.07.2006. There was a peculiar clause in Ext.B74 requiring the buyer to pay a sum of ₹25,00,000/- to Mevis Davies on or before 25.06.2006, i.e., within 30 days from the date of the agreement. The agreement further recites that this stipulation "shall be an important condition of the agreement."

31. On the reverse side of the stamp paper used for executing the agreement, there is an endorsement stating that Sindhu Sidharthan paid ₹25,00,000/- on 24.07.2006 by Cheque No. 429688, and that, in consequence, the period of the agreement stood extended by 15 days. Another endorsement, dated 10.08.2006, purports to record that Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 50 2025:KER:61859 Sidharthan encountered certain difficulties in proceeding with the agreement, whereupon the sale was cancelled and the advance amount of ₹25,00,000/- was returned by Cheque No. 27160.

32. Although Ext.B74 purports to be an agreement between Mevis Davies and Sidharthan, represented by his Power of Attorney holder, Sindhu Sidharthan, the circumstances surrounding its creation and cancellation are telling. Upon cancellation, Mevis Davies transferred the advance amount not to Sidharthan, the ostensible contracting party, but to Sindhu Sidharthan. Significantly, he had otherwise been meticulous in transferring all purported purchase prices, when effected through the bank, directly into Sidharthan's account. Secondly, the fact that, in a transaction of such magnitude -- ₹32,64,000/ -- the sum paid on the date of the agreement was a mere ₹10,000/- appears highly unusual. Equally questionable is the clause requiring payment of ₹25,00,000/- within one month, leaving only ₹7,64,000/- to be paid in the remaining month Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 51 2025:KER:61859 of the agreement's validity. The subsequent extension of the agreement for 15 days, followed by its cancellation immediately thereafter, deepens the suspicion regarding its genuineness.

33. The dates of these events correspond exactly with the bank transactions between the said parties-- the transactions which Mevis Davies had initially suppressed or denied. We therefore find merit in the submission of Sri. Rajit, learned counsel for the appellant, that the second respondent appears to have devised the terms of the agreement so as to align with the date of the available blank stamp paper and with the banking transactions revealed through Exts.X1(a) and X5, contrary to his own specific pleadings.

34. The situation in respect of Ext.B76--the purported agreement for sale between Sindhu Sidharthan, as the first party, and Mevis Davies, as the second party--is strikingly similar. Under its terms, Mevis Davies proposed to purchase a residential flat in the name of Sindhu Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 52 2025:KER:61859 Sidharthan for ₹14,00,000/-. The advance amount allegedly paid on the date of execution was a mere ₹25,000/-. Here again, we find a peculiar stipulation requiring the second party to pay ₹5,00,000/- to the first party within two months. As per Ext.B77, such payment was made on 22.08.2007. The explanation offered by Mevis Davies is that this sum of ₹5,00,000/- was returned by Sindhu Sidharthan on 16.01.2012, as evidenced by Ext.X4, upon the failure of the agreement. We find it extremely difficult to accept this explanation, for the plain reason that an agreement with a validity period of only four months was inexplicably kept alive for a span of five years--without any extension clause or further payments--despite the fact that Mevis Davies is claimed to be a seasoned real estate dealer.

35. It is the appellant's case that, with the active aid and support of Mevis Davies, Sindhu Sidharthan resorted to a malicious course of action when the sale deeds standing in her name were set aside by the Family Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 53 2025:KER:61859 Court. By utilising blank stamp papers allegedly made available by Mevis Davies, she created three agreements for sale - Exts.A85 and A86 between herself (purportedly acting as agent of the appellant) and one Sajeev John, and Ext.A87 with one Boban. On the strength of these fabricated agreements, she caused two civil suits to be filed, viz., O.S.No.92/2017 before the Sub Court, Chavakkad, and O.S.No.193/2016 before the Sub Court, Thrissur, claiming that she, as the appellant's Power of Attorney holder, had executed the agreements for sale in favour of the respective plaintiffs, who sought specific performance thereof. The properties involved in these suits are the subject matter of Ext.A25 and Ext.A17 sale deeds, which had been declared null and void by the Family Court. It is pointed out that one of these suits was dismissed on merits, with a finding that the agreement was fabricated, while the other was decreed ex parte as the appellant was unaware of the proceedings. The appellant has since preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 54 2025:KER:61859 the ex parte decree, which remains pending, it is urged.

36. Ext.A86 with Sajeev John relates to property forming the subject matter of one of the sale deeds executed in the name of Sindhu Sidharthan. Strikingly, the performance period stipulated therein is 11 years, and the corresponding suit was instituted only in 2017, though the agreement is of the year 2007. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that this unusually long period was collusively and deliberately fixed to circumvent the bar of limitation and to bind the property based on such an agreement purportedly executed while the Power of Attorney was in force. The other agreement is identical in nature; it also stipulates a period of 11 years and was made the basis of a suit filed after the sale deed in favour of Sindhu Sidharthan was set aside by the Family Court, Thrissur, it is contended.

37. It is significant to note that, as per Ext.A86, Sindhu Sidharthan purportedly received ₹3,00,000/- towards the purchase price on 24.01.2007, as endorsed on the Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 55 2025:KER:61859 reverse side of Ext.A86 agreement. She also purportedly received ₹5,00,000/- on 10.01.2007, which was also similarly endorsed. However, it is pertinent to note that, by Ext.A17, she transferred the very same property to herself on 08.02.2007--within 14 days of receiving the latter amount. If the agreement for sale had truly been executed on 18.03.2006, and such substantial amounts were received towards the purchase price in January 2007, it defies logic and common sense that she would thereafter execute a sale deed in her own name so soon thereafter. The above instances clearly suggests that Sindhu Sidharthan adopted every possible stratagem to defeat the appellant's interests.

38. In further support of his submissions, Sri.Rajit, learned counsel for the appellant, has drawn our attention to yet another circumstance which, according to him, suggests that the deeds in the name of Mevis Davies were mere namesake. Reference is made to Exts.A23 and A65. Under Ext.A23, a sale deed dated 07.02.2007 executed in Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 56 2025:KER:61859 favour of Mevis Davies, the consideration shown is ₹6,60,000/-. However, in Ext.A65--being an objection filed by Mevis Davies in E.P. No. 468/2013 in O.S. No. 1642/2010 before the Sub Court, Thrissur--where he figured as the judgment debtor and the execution petition was instituted by one Sidharthan (employed in BSNL and distinct from the appellant)--he asserted that the very same property was worth ₹2.07 crores. It is pertinent to extract the relevant contentions from Ext.A65, for they bear directly upon the credibility of the second respondent's case.

"3. വവിധവി കടകക്കാരനന പപേരവിലുള്ള വവിധവി കട സസംഖഖ സസംഖഖയക്കായവി അടച തതീർക്കുവക്കാൻ വവിധവികടകക്കാരനന യക്കാനതക്കാരു മക്കാർഗവുമവിലക്കാത്തതക്കാണന. എങവിൽ തനന പമൽ നമ്പർ പകസന നസറവിൽ നചെയ്യുനതവിപലേകന വവിധവികടകക്കാരനന തൃശൂർ തക്കാലൂകന പപേരക്കാമസംഗലേസം വവിപലജന ടവി പദേശത്തന മുണ്ടൂർ SRO യുനട കതീഴവിലുള്ളതസം വവിധവി കടകക്കാരനന പപേരവിലുള്ള ബഹ: പകക്കാടതവി ജപവിനചെയ്ത 2 ഏകർ 7 നസനന വസ വകകൾകന നസനവിനന 1 ലേകസം രൂപേ വവിലേമതവിക്കുനതസം ആയതവിനക്കാൽ തനന നമക്കാത്തസം വസവകയന 2 പകക്കാടവി 7 ലേകസം രൂപേയവിലേധവികസം മതവിപന വവിലേയുള്ളതസം ആണന. ടവി 2 ഏകർ 7 നസനന വരുന നമക്കാത്തസം വസവകകൾ മുകളവിൽ പേറഞ വവിധവി കടത്തവിപലേകന പലേലേസം നചെപയ്യേണ്ടതന ആവശഖമവിലക്കാത്തതമക്കാകുന. ബഹ:

പകക്കാടതവിയുനട ഉത്തരവന മക്കാനവിചന വവിധവി കട സസംഖഖ തതീർക്കുവക്കാൻ വസവകകളുനട 12% ഭൂമവി പലേലേസം നചെയ്യുനതവിനന വവിധവി കടകക്കാരനന എതവിർപവിലക്കാത്തതക്കാണന. 12% Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 57 2025:KER:61859 ഭൂമവി പലേലേത്തവിൽ വവിറക്കാൽ കുറഞതന 25 ലേകസം രൂപേ ലേഭവിക്കുനതക്കാണന."

39. Significantly, the above part of Ext. A65 was put to the notice of Mevis Davies when he was cross-examined. He had no explanation to offer on the above incongruity. As noted earlier, Mevis Davies has transferred the land he obtained as per Ext. A34 sale deed in favour of Sachidananda Menon by executing Ext. A35 sale deed for a sale consideration of ₹ 50,00,000/-. The sale consideration shown in Ext. A34 was only ₹ 18,00,000/-. Though Mevis Davies contended that he got a higher price because he developed the land, the said stance was stoutly challenged, and yet he failed to produce any evidence to establish his contention. Although Mevis Davies was aware that the transfers in his favour were under challenge on the ground that they were sham documents, he did not care to establish his contention. We have already noted that Mevis Davies transferred ₹ 18,00,000/- in favour of Sidharthan from the money derived from Sidharthan himself, Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 58 2025:KER:61859 and that the documents set up like Exts. A74 and A76 are not genuine. In the above circumstance, merely for the reason that Mevis Davies had remitted the respective sale price in the account of Sidharthan, which was instantaneously encashed by Sindhu Sidharthan, we are not in a position to hold that he is a bona fide purchaser.

40. It is true that Mevis Davies returned ₹25,00,000/- to Sindhu Sidharthan on 12.08.2006. Solely for this reason, it is difficult to believe the case set up by Mevis Davies based on Ext. A74. From the discussion made above, there are reasons to believe that both of them agreed to do illegal acts in respect of the land owned by Sidharthan. Thus, the transfer of said amount can be for certain other purposes, including the sharing of profit of their concerted acts. However, there is no positive evidence in that respect. But that payment alone cannot be projected to justify Ext. A74 for the reasons we narrated above.

Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 59 2025:KER:61859

41. The next contention advanced by Sri. P.B. Subramanyan, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, is that the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata as Sidharthan has challenged the transactions made by Sindhu Sidharthan in favour of one Sharafudheen (Ext. A43) by filing O.P. No. 1622 of 2007, but the decree in the said original petition and similar other petitions, which were disposed of by the common order together with the present matters, were left unchallenged by Sidharthan. According to him, the issues raised in and the contentions advanced in all these cases are one and the same. To establish this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Avira Joseph v. Varghese Mathai and Others (2010 (3) KHC 564). However, in those cases, Sidharthan had no contention that the transactions were sham, but his case was essentially that Sindhu Sidharthan had effected the transfers without his consent and that she did not remit the sale price in his account. Sidharthan was cross-examined on the above Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 60 2025:KER:61859 point and conceded that his claim was basically against Sindhu Sidharthan for return of the sale price, as far as those persons are concerned. Thus there is no question of any bar under the principles of res judicata, even if the decree in that case was left unchallenged. That apart, unlike the facts of the case under consideration here, in Avira's case (supra), the party therein opted not to challenge the decree passed together with the impugned orders in a case against the same opposite parties.

42. During the course of hearing, Sri Rajit, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the main relief sought for in the original petition is essentially a declaration to the effect that the respective sale deeds are sham and thus not binding on the appellant, though cancellation of the document was also sought. Based on this, Sri. P.B. Subramanyan further contended that the suit is barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as the appellant did not seek any relief for recovery of possession in any of those suits, Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 61 2025:KER:61859 whereas he admitted in cross-examination in another proceeding between himself and Sindhu Sidharthan (the deposition of Sidharthan in O.P.No.1413/2007, which is marked as Ext.B1) that he is in possession of only four properties at Poonthole, Engandiyur and Padur villages, which implies that they do not include the subject matter plots. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Vasantha (Dead) Thr. Lr. v. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) Thr.Lrs. (2024 KHC 6076) and Venkataraja and Ors. v. Vidyane Doureradjaperumal (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others [(2014) 14 SCC 502]. We are unable to accept the above contention as well. In the original petitions filed by the appellant and in his chief affidavit, he specifically states that all the petition scheduled properties are still in his possession, through his wife Sindhu Sidharthan, to whom he entrusted everything out of their marital tie. Further, Mevis Davies did not challenge such aspects regarding his possession, when the appellant was cross-examined. Sidharthan further Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 62 2025:KER:61859 sought a relief of prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession. Even otherwise, Sidharthan's contention is that Sindhu Sidharthan is still in possession of all the lands conveyed to Mevis Davies, and her possession will not affect his rights, that being commenced on agency. The law in this regard is well settled that the possession of an agent under a deed of Power of Attorney is also possession of the Principal [Chandrakantaben,Narendra Jayantilal Modi v. Vadilal Bapalal Modi and Ors. (1989 (2) SCC 630)]. Thus, we do not find any circumstance in the present cases against the second respondent to hold that the suit is barred by the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

43. There is one more reason to discard the contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Ext. B1 deposition is a previous statement of Sidharthan, and hence the law requires that the attention Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 63 2025:KER:61859 of the witness has to be drawn to the contradictory part of his previous statement, for giving him a chance to explain about it. Unless that procedure contemplated in Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act (which corresponds to Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Abhiniyam, 2023) is followed, the court cannot consider that the relevant part of the previous statement is proved. Although the previous statement made by a party to the proceedings can be considered as a piece of admission, his attention to such contradictory portions has necessarily to be drawn to it before the statement is proved. The Apex Court in Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil (AIR 1977 SC 1712) held as above, distinguishing the view expressed in Bharat Singh v. Bhagirati (AIR 1966 SC 405). Above all, what appears from his previous statement is only that he was referring to the plots remaining available after Sindhu Sidharthan executed a series of conveyance deeds based on the Power of Attorney. It is difficult to interpret the said statement as an admission that, except the said four Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 64 2025:KER:61859 properties at Poonthole, Engandiyur and Padur villages, the properties are in the possession of the purported purchasers.

44. It is further contended by Sri. P.B. Subramanyan that in fact the appellant and the first respondent are colluding together, and this is evident from the following aspects:

(1) In cross-examination, the appellant conceded that he had taken Sindhu Sidharthan abroad two times after the cancellation of the Power of Attorney.

(2) He further admitted that he had transferred ₹ 10,00,000/- to Sindhu Sidharthan during the year 2012, while he was actively prosecuting the petitions before the Family Court.

(3) Though the Family Court had granted a decree for realization of money against Sindhu Sidharthan, the Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 65 2025:KER:61859 appellant filed the execution petition only in the year 2021 and those execution petitions were later dismissed for default.

(4) The appellant had filed a petition for divorce against Sindhu Sidharthan (on the ground of adultery implicating Mevis Davies as the second respondent).

The said petition was dismissed for default, and the application for restoration was allowed by the court on payment of costs of ₹ 10,000/-, which was not paid by Sidharthan. He did not challenge the said order until all the appeals before this court were taken for final hearing.

45. As regards the first two aspects, it is relevant to note the stance of Sidharthan. He came to understand that Sindhu Sidharthan actually transferred those properties only on 17.09.2009, when his wife openly declared so over the telephone. Similarly, when Sidharthan Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 66 2025:KER:61859 admitted that he took his wife abroad even after the cancellation of the Power of Attorney, in the same breath, he said that it was before the above date and it was together with his children. He also said that at that time, he did not know that he had been cheated by his wife. If that be so, taking his wife abroad at a point of time at which he had no reason to suspect her impugned transactions would not affect his bona fides. As regards the next contention, what Sidharthan stated in cross- examination was that he transferred ₹ 10,00,000/- in the name of Sindhu Sidharthan for the maintenance of his children. Sidharthan further stated specifically that the above amount was transferred to Sindhu Sidharthan as requested by his children. Even when he was conducting the above cases, it was his bounden duty to maintain his children, and thus making such payments to their mother cannot be projected as a ground to suspect that there is collusion between the appellant and the first respondent. Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 67 2025:KER:61859

46. To counter the contention regarding the closing of execution petitions initiated against Sindhu Sidharthan, Sri. Rajit, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that those petitions were withdrawn (not dismissed for default) when it was found that the property against which the execution petition was filed, i.e., 5B Apartment in Cheloor Tower, Thrissur, had been sold by Sindhu Sidharthan. The appellant then decided to file fresh execution petitions before the Family Court in Alappuzha as E.P. Nos. 20/2021, 18/2021 and 19/2021 respectively. The learned counsel further contended that Sidharthan had been completely broken, and at present, he is working as a supplier in a hotel, and hence, he was not in a position to challenge the said order of restoration at the appropriate stage, and that at the relevant time, his business and career were entirely ruined because of the malicious acts of the first respondent. We find some merit in the above submissions. At any rate, none of the above contentions is sufficient to challenge the bona Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 68 2025:KER:61859 fides of the appellant.

47. When it is found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both the respondents agreed to do an illegal act or an actionable wrong, anything done by either of them in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any of them, is a relevant fact as against each of them. Such an act is also relevant for the purpose of proving the existence of the agreement. This is the principle underlying Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act (corresponding to Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Abhiniyam, 2023). It reads as follows:

"10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.--Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 69 2025:KER:61859 is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."

In the Commentary of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act by Sir John Woodroffe and Syed Amir Ali (21st Edition, Volume 1, Lexis Nexis publication), it is stated as follows:

"The section applies to criminal offences as well as to actionable wrongs, etc.. The acts and declarations of co-trespassers in civil actions and indeed of all persons combined and having a common object, whether civil or criminal, are governed by the same rules."

John Henry Wigmore, in his Treatise on Evidence in Trials at Common Law (3rd Edn., Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1940, Section 1079), has observed that "admissions of one joint tortfeasor are receivable against another, on the same principle and with the same limitations, as those of conspirators; this is merely the same doctrine in its Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 70 2025:KER:61859 application to civil liability for torts." Though this principle is seldom invoked in civil proceedings, it has been held in Rishi Kesh Singh and Others v. State [AIR 1970 All 51 (FB)] that the provisions of the Evidence Act are equally applicable to civil and criminal proceedings, unless expressly excluded.

48. In this case, from the circumstances mentioned aforesaid, there are reasonable grounds to believe that Sindhu Sidharthan and Mevis Davies had conspired together to commit an actionable wrong at some point near the execution of Ext. A49 registered Power of Attorney.

49. The effect of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act/Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Abhiniyam, 2023 is that once there is reasonable ground to believe that Sindhu Sidharthan and Mevis Davies conspired together to do some wrongful acts, the act done by any one of them is a relevant fact as against the other as well. Further, the Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 71 2025:KER:61859 same acts are relevant for the purpose of proving the very existence of the conspiracy itself. However, here, even without the aid of the above provision, the circumstances, when read together, show that both of them acted together in the manner above observed.

50. Sri.Sreelal Warrier, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent in Mat.Appeal No.1295/2015, challenged the veracity of the contention of Sidharthan that the transfer in favour of Sachidananda Menon is invalid as Sindhu Sidharthan was not entitled to transfer the land to his predecessor-in-interest. According to him, as per Ext. A49, Sidharthan had specifically authorised his wife to sell almost all his properties in Kerala, comprising nearly three dozen plots, as he was heavily indebted, and thus his genuineness is to be seriously doubted.

51. The learned counsel further submitted that Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 72 2025:KER:61859 Sachidananda Menon was a bona fide purchaser and thus his interests should be protected, irrespective of the nature of the transaction between the appellant and the second respondent. Placing reliance on the decisions in Firm Man Singh Moti Ram Maliwara v. B.N. Sinha (AIR 1940 Lah 198), Maharaja of Faridkot State v. Anant Ram and Ors. (AIR 1929 Lah 1), Basharat Ali Shah v. Ram Rattan and Ors. (AIR 1938 Lah 73), Pothene Puthan Vittil Kunhu Pothu Nassiar v. Adrasseri Raru Nair and Ors. (AIR 1923 Mad 558), Malan Devi v. Amritsar National Bank Ltd and Ors. (AIR 1936 Lah

286), Phagoo Murao v. Tulshi Ram Tewari (AIR 1930 All 438), the learned counsel argued that a bona fide transferee is protected, even if he got the title from a fraudulent transferee.

52. We are unable to accept the contention that the bonafides of Sidharthan is to be doubted because he had executed the Power of Attorney to sell all his plots. Sidharthan contends that he executed the Power of Attorney Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 73 2025:KER:61859 believing the words of his wife that it was necessary for the proper management and administration of his properties in Kerala. According to him, he has not much formal education and is unable to read or write English. The operative portion of the Power of Attorney begins as follows:

"AND WHEREAS I am presently residing and doing business at Dubai, UAE. I am unable to attend the day to day affairs related to my properties and business in Kerala. AND WHEREAS I am desirous of appointing somebody to look after, manage and deal all my properties, business and other assets and operate my Bank accounts."

(emphasis added) It is with this objective that Sidharthan executed the Power of Attorney. Indeed, the Power of Attorney specifically authorises Sindhu Sidharthan to sell his properties. But certainly that was not the sole object.

53. However, as regards Ext. A34 sale deed, we are of Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 74 2025:KER:61859 the view that the appellant is entitled to get only the alternate relief sought, namely damages, as there is overwhelming evidence that Sachidananda Menon is a bona fide purchaser and he is in possession of the land. He has transferred the sale price to Mevis Davies through a bank by availing a bank loan. We also note that at the time when Sachidananda Menon purchased the property, the Power of Attorney was in force and that Sachidananda Menon purchased the property after verifying all the relevant records, including the Power of Attorney. The appellant did not seriously dispute that Sachidananda Menon is in possession of the said property. So also, there is no prayer for recovery of possession. Above all, despite the fact that the appellant was well aware of the said subsequent transfer in favour of Sachidananda Menon, as evident from Ext. P10 in O.P.(FC)No.318/2022, which was also filed by him before this court, he did not choose to implead him as a party and to make an amendment imputing the said transfer within the period of limitation. Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 75 2025:KER:61859 Therefore, we find no reason to allow the main relief in this case.

54. Regarding the quantum of damages to be paid to the appellant in respect of Ext.A34, it is evident from the records that Mevis Davies had received ₹ 50,00,000/- from Sachidananda Menon in respect of the said sale deed. Having found that Mevis Davies and Sindhu Sidharthan were acting in collusion, they are jointly liable to compensate the appellant by paying ₹ 50,00,000/- with interest.

55. What emerges from the above discussion is that, at some point near the execution of Ext. A49 registered Power of Attorney, Sindhu Sidharthan and Mevis Davies fraudulently decided to create sale deeds in their own names so as to defeat the interests of Sidharthan. With that objective, Sindhu Sidharthan, acting as Power of Attorney holder with authority even over Sidharthan's bank account, transferred ₹ 25,00,000/- from his account to Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 76 2025:KER:61859 Mevis Davies. Out of that amount, ₹18,00,000/- was transferred back by Mevis Davies to Sidharthan's account in order to make it appear that it was the consideration for Ext. A34 sale deed. On the very same day, Sindhu Sidharthan withdrew the said amount from Sidharthan's account and encashed it. Subsequently, within five months, Mevis Davies transferred the same property to Sachidananda Menon, the third respondent in Mat. Appeal No. 1295 of 2015, and thereby obtained ₹ 50,00,000/- as consideration. Similarly, Sindhu Sidharthan created three further documents, namely Exts. A9, A20 and A23, in favour of Mevis Davies. Among these, in respect of Exts. A9 and A23, Sindhu Sidharthan employed the same method of withdrawing the amount deposited in Sidharthan's account. In respect of Ext. A20, there is no bank remittance corresponding to the alleged consideration. Though the sale price shown in Ext. A23 was ₹ 6,60,000/-, Mevis Davies himself admitted in Ext. A65 written objection that the property would fetch at least ₹ 2.07 crores before Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 77 2025:KER:61859 the Sub Court, Thrissur, in a proceeding instituted by a third party. In continuation of the deeds executed in favour of Mevis Davies, Sindhu Sidharthan also executed certain sale deeds in her own name. All these deeds, including those in the name of Mevis Davies (except Ext. A34), were created on 07.07.2007 and 08.08.2007, after information had been received that the Power of Attorney had been cancelled, and without execution of any agreement for sale or obtaining a non-encumbrance certificate or other clearance records. When Sindhu Sidharthan created three deeds in her name during the above days, Mevis Davies attested one of them. The defence set up by Mevis Davies to justify the transfer of Rs. 25,00,000/- into his account by Sindhu Sidharthan is highly improbable, and the documents produced in support of such defence appear to be concocted. The circumstances further indicate that Mevis Davies had knowledge of the cancellation of the Power of Attorney, yet proceeded with the execution of a series of conveyances in favour of himself and Sindhu Sidharthan, Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 78 2025:KER:61859 with malicious object. The second respondent is, therefore, not a bona fide purchaser. The appeals are accordingly liable to be allowed.

56. In the result, all the appeals are allowed with cost throughout. It is declared that Exts.A9, A23 and A20 sale deeds stand cancelled. The first and second respondents are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule properties by the appellant.

57. In Mat.Appeal No.1295/2015, the appellant is entitled to the alternate relief of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) from the first and second respondents (Sindhu Sidharthan and Mevis Davies), jointly and severally with 9% interest from 02.01.2007 till the date of the order and thereafter with 6% interest. The impugned order is modified to the Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 79 2025:KER:61859 above extent.

O.P.(FC)No.318/2022

58. This petition is filed by Sidharthan challenging the common order passed by the Family Court, Thrissur, in I.A.No.1/2021 and 2/2021 in O.P.No.356/2008. Sidharthan had initiated divorce proceedings against Sindhu Sidharthan on the grounds of cruelty and adultery, by arraying Mevis Davies as the second respondent. The said petition was dismissed for default on 23.11.2015, and later, the Family Court permitted restoration of the said petition on payment of cost of ₹10,000/- within ten days, as per its order dated 22.02.2016 in I.A.No.5328/2015. As Sidharthan failed to pay the cost, the said application was dismissed on 04.03.2016. He filed the abovesaid interlocutory applications for restoring the said restoration petition after condoning the delay of 2046 days.

Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 80 2025:KER:61859

59. The learned Family Court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner had no case that he was unaware of the condition in the order dated 22.02.2016, and instead, he only contended that he suffered a huge financial loss and hence was unable to pay the cost.

60. Heard both sides.

61. The contention of Sidharthan is that because of the financial loss suffered by him due to the fraud played by his wife, he was not in a position to remit the cost within the relevant time. According to him, he had been leading the life of a destitute since 25.07.2017, as all his business ventures failed due to the foul play of his wife.

62. There is no dispute that Sidharthan was aware of the impugned order right from the date when it was passed. The delay sought to be condoned is more than 5 ½ years. As rightly observed by the Family Court, Sidharthan failed to Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 81 2025:KER:61859 state a sufficient reason for condoning the delay of such a long period. There is no merit in this petition. However, the said proceeding will not debar him from initiating a fresh proceeding on a subsequent cause of action.

In the above circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. O.P.(FC)No.318/2022 is dismissed.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE Sd/-

P. KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE sv Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 82 2025:KER:61859 APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 1280/2015 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A94 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.193/2016 OF THE SUB COURT THRISSUR DATED 30.03.2023 RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A REGISTRATION COPY OF THE SAID DEED REGISTERED AS SETTLEMENT DEED, DOC.NO.1044/2021 SRO AMBALAPUZHA, DATED 28-04-2021 ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF E.P.NO.48 OF 2021 IN O.P.NO.1621 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 16-07-2021 ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.P.NO.48 OF 2021 IN O.P.NO.1621 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 09-03-2023, ANNEXURE D CERTIFIED COPY OF E.P.NO.47 OF 2021 IN O.P.NO.1622 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 16-07-2021 ANNEXURE E CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.P.NO.47 OF 2021 IN O.P.NO.1622 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 09-03-2023 ANNEXURE F CERTIFIED COPY OF E.P.NO.49 OF 2021 IN O.P.NO.1623 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 16-07-2021 ANNEXURE G CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.P.NO.49 OF 2021 IN O.P.NO.1623 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 09-03-2023 ANNEXURE R2(A) REGISTRATION COPY OF THE SALE DEED REGISTERED AS DOC.NO.2074/2006 SRO AMBALAPUZHA, DATED 19-09-2006 Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 83 2025:KER:61859 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 318/2022 RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.P.NO.356 OF 2008, FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 23- 11-2015 ANNEXURE R2(F) TRUE COPY THE COUNTER IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2021 IN O.P.NO.356 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 3- 01-2022 ANNEXURE R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.5328 OF 2015 IN O.P.NO.356 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 04-03-2016 ANNEXURE R2(C) TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1 OF 2021 IN O.P.NO.356 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 30-06- 2021 ANNEXURE R2(D) TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.2 OF 2021 IN O.P.NO.356 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 30-06- 2021 ANNEXURE R2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2021 IN O.P.NO.356 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 3- 1-2022 ANNEXURE R2(G) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES DATED 3-09-2016 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THRISSUR ANNEXURE R2(H) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES DATED 3-09-2016 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THRISSUR ANNEXURE R2(I) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES DATED 3-09-2016 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THRISSUR ANNEXURE R2(J) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES DATED 3-09-2016 ISSUED BY Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015, 1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022 84 2025:KER:61859 THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THRISSUR ANNEXURE R2(K) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES DATED 3-09-2016 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THRISSUR ANNEXURE R2(L) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES DATED 3-09-2016 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THRISSUR ANNEXURE R2(M) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES DATED 3-09-2016 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THRISSUR ANNEXURE R2(N) TRUE COPY OF CAVEAT NO.171 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 18-8-201

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court