P.Krishna Kumar, J.
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
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
2025:KER:61859
parte before the trial court and has not preferred any
challenge to the judgment.