Kerala High Court
Engadiyur Farmers’ Service ... vs Radhakrishnan.C.A on 31 October, 2025
2025:KER:84495
WP(C) NO. 26091 OF 2023
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26091 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
ENGADIYUR FARMERS' SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
NO. E.977
AGED 51 YEARS
KUNDALIYUR.P.O, THRISSUR , REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR., PIN - 680616
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 RADHAKRISHNAN.C.A
S/O ACHUTHAN, CHULLIPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
ENGANDIYOOR.P.O, THRISSUR- 680 615
2 ARUNKRISHNA
S/O RADHAKRISHNAN.C.A, CHULLIPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
ENGANDIYUR.P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680615
3 THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, 4TH FLOOR TURBO
PLUS TOWER, PMG , JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695033
4 THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL
, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER& SUB DIVISIONAL
MAGISTRATE, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL
LINES RD, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN -
680003
2025:KER:84495
WP(C) NO. 26091 OF 2023
-2-
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.T.K VIPINDAS -SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 31.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:84495
WP(C) NO. 26091 OF 2023
-3-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 31st day of October 2025 NITIN JAMDAR, C.J.
The Petitioner, a co-operative bank, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. The impugned order was issued on the basis of directions made by the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. By this order, the Human Rights Commission directed the Petitioner bank to return the original title deeds of the Respondent-borrower, which had been deposited with the bank as security for a loan availed by the Respondent.
2. Respondent No.1 is the father of Respondent No.2. The Petitioner bank, a primary credit society duly registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the Act of 1969), had sanctioned and disbursed a loan amounting to ₹6,50,000/- to Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 furnished, as security for the said loan, an immovable property situated in Engandiyur Village, Chavakkad Taluk, by depositing the title deeds thereof with the Petitioner bank on 7 June 2016. The Petitioner bank granted the loan on the strength of the immovable property mortgaged with the Society, and all the original title deeds pertaining to the said property were duly deposited by Respondent No.2. Since there was default in repayment 2025:KER:84495 WP(C) NO. 26091 OF 2023 -4- of the loan amount, the Petitioner initiated arbitration proceedings under Section 9 of the Act of 1969, and an arbitration award was passed in favour of the Petitioner bank on 9 November 2021. Despite issuance of demand notices pursuant to the said award, Respondent No.2 failed to remit the outstanding dues.
3. While Respondent No.2 failed to repay the loan amount despite the demand notices issued pursuant to the arbitration award, Respondent No.1 approached the Maintenance Tribunal by filing a complaint under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Maintenance Tribunal, by an ex parte order dated 17 June 2019, cancelled the settlement deed executed on 7 June 2016. Respondent No.2 did not appear before the Tribunal during the proceedings, and the fact that the said property had been mortgaged with the Petitioner bank as security for the loan was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 approached the Kerala State Human Rights Commission by filing a petition on 7 December 2020, seeking a direction to the Petitioner bank to return the original title deeds of the property. The Kerala State Human Rights Commission, by the impugned order dated 29 February 2023 (Ext. P5), directed the Petitioner bank to return the said title deeds to Respondent No.1. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner is before us.
4. We have heard Mr. P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. A.R. Nimod, learned counsel for 2025:KER:84495 WP(C) NO. 26091 OF 2023 -5- Respondent No.2. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 remained absent, though served.
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, pursuant to the settlement deed dated 7 June 2016, Respondent No.2 had become the owner of the property in question and had subsequently mortgaged the same with the Petitioner bank to obtain the loan. It is further submitted that Respondent No.2 committed a default in repayment of the said loan, resulting in the initiation of arbitration proceedings and the passing of an award in favour of the Petitioner bank. The learned counsel submits that there is clear collusion between Respondent Nos . 1 and 2 with the intent to defraud the Petitioner bank. This is evident from the fact that, despite the adverse order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Respondent No.2 did not even bother to challenge the said order. It is further submitted that a novel method has been adopted by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 with the intention of defeating the arbitration award passed in favour of the Petitioner bank. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, neither the Maintenance Tribunal nor the Kerala State Human Rights Commission had the jurisdiction to issue the impugned orders.
6. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 submitted that there was no collusion or fraudulent intent and that Respondent No.1 had been genuinely deceived by Respondent No.2.
7. The relationship between Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is admitted.
2025:KER:84495 WP(C) NO. 26091 OF 2023 -6- It is submitted that the loan agreement was executed as far back as 2016, and the title deeds of the property were duly deposited with the Petitioner bank at that time. It is further submitted that no steps were taken by Respondent No.1, and Respondent No.1 approached the Maintenance Tribunal by filing a complaint only in the year 2019. Despite being duly served with notice, Respondent No.2 did not appear before the Maintenance Tribunal. It is further submitted that the addresses of Respondent Nos . 1 and 2, as recorded in the proceedings before the Tribunal, are identical. Despite the setting aside of the settlement deed by the Tribunal, Respondent No.2 did not challenge the same. It is submitted that, even though the settlement deed was set aside, the rights of the Petitioner bank had already accrued, as evidenced by the arbitration award passed in its favour. If the Petitioner bank had proceeded in law with the execution of the arbitration award passed by a competent court, there would have been no question of any violation of human rights warranting intervention by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. The learned counsel for the Petitioner was, therefore, right in contending that the impugned order passed by the State Human Rights Commission was without jurisdiction.
8. As regards the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, it is submitted that the settlement deed, pursuant to which rights had accrued in favour of the Petitioner bank, was set aside without affording notice to the Petitioner bank. If such orders are passed and 2025:KER:84495 WP(C) NO. 26091 OF 2023 -7- made binding on creditor banks, it will open up a new avenue for defrauding creditor banks. The order passed by the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be held to be binding on the Petitioner bank. Consequently, Respondent No.2, despite the Tribunal's order setting aside the settlement deed, neither challenged the same nor appeared in the present petition.
9. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, Exts. P2 and P5, are quashed and set aside. Regarding the substantive rights of the parties, if they have not already been settled by a competent court, it is open to the parties to assert such rights before a competent court of law.
10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
NITIN JAMDAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI JUDGE uu 2025:KER:84495 WP(C) NO. 26091 OF 2023 -8- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26091/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 9/11/2021 IN ARC NO.823/2019 ISSUED BY THE ARBITRATOR Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERNO. C2- 15929/2018 DATED 17/6/2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 7/12/2020 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED9/2/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN HRMP.NO.8474/11/13/2020/TSR DATED 20/2/2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/3/2023 IN W.P(C) NO.28454/2020