Kerala High Court
Sidharthan vs Sindhu Sidharthan on 19 August, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015,
1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022
1
2025:KER:61859
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1280 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2015 IN OP NO.1414 OF 2007
OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SIDHARTHAN, AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.KOPRA KUNJIMON, MANATHALA
AMSOM, DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SINDHU SIDHARTHAN, AGED 43 YEARS
W/O.SIDHARTHAN, FLAT NO.4 H,
CHELOOR TOWER, POOTHOLE DESOM,
THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.-680001
2 MEVIS DAVIES, AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.MALIYECKAL DEVIS,
KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE,DESOM,
THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.-680001
Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015,
1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022
2
2025:KER:61859
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SHRI.S.NITHIN (ANCHAL)
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.08.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL Nos..1281/2015, 1282/2015,
1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No.318/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 19.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015,
1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022
3
2025:KER:61859
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1281 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2015 IN OP NO.1418 OF 2007
OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SIDHARTHAN, AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.KOPRA KUNJIMON,
MANATHALA AMSOM, DESOM,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SINDHU SIDHARTHAN, AGED 43 YEARS
W/O.SIDHARTHAN, FLAT.NO.4H,
CHELOOR TOWER, POOTHOLE DESOM,
THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001
2 MEVIS DAVIES, AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.MALIYECKAL DEVIS,
KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, DESOM,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001.
Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015,
1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022
4
2025:KER:61859
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
SHRI.S.NITHIN (ANCHAL)
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.08.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL.1280/2015 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015,
1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022
5
2025:KER:61859
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1282 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2015 IN OP NO.1415 OF 2007
OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SIDHARTHAN, AGED 60 YEARS
S/O KOPRA KUNJIMON,
MANATHALA AMSOM, DESOM,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT
BY ADV SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SINDHU SIDHARTHAN, AGED 43 YEARS,
W/O SIDHARTHAN, FLAT NO. 4 H,
CHELOOR TOWER, POOTHOLE DESOM,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001
2 MEVIS DAVIES, AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O MALIYECKAL DEVIS,
KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE,
DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001
Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015,
1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022
6
2025:KER:61859
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
SHRI.S.NITHIN (ANCHAL)
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.08.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL.1280/2015 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015,
1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022
7
2025:KER:61859
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1295 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2015 IN OP NO.1620 OF 2007
OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SIDHARTHAN, AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.KOPRA KUNJIMON,
MANATHALA AMSOM, DESOM,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
1 SINDHU SIDHARTHAN, AGED 43 YEARS
W/O.SIDHARTHAN,
FLAT NO. 4 H, CHELOOR TOWER,
POOTHOLE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001.
2 MEVIS DAVIES, AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.MALIYECKAL DEVIS,
KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE,DESOM,
THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001.
Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015,
1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022
8
2025:KER:61859
3 SACHIDANANDA MENON
S/O.NJATTUVEETTIL SAROJINI AMMA,
PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, DESOM,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER
SHRI.K.H.ASIF
SRI.JOSE JACOB
SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)
SHRI.C.A.MAJEED
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
SHRI.S.NITHIN (ANCHAL)
SMT.RAAGA R.RAMALAKSHMI
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.K.J.SHARATH KUMAR
SHRI.P.B.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR
SRI.K.R.PAUL
SHRI.MATHEW J.ELENJICKAL
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.08.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL.1280/2015 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015,
1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022
9
2025:KER:61859
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 318 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2022 IN I.A.NO.1/2021 AND
2/2021 IN OP NO.356 OF 2008 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
SIDHARTHAN, AGED 68 YEARS
S/O KUNJUMON, KOPPARA VEETTIL,
NOW RESIDING AT KOPPARA VEETTIL,
C/O UNNIKRISHNAN, PADDOR DESOM,
VENKIDANGU VILLAGE,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
THRISSUR-680524
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAJIT
SMT.LEKSHMI P. NAIR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SINDHU SIDHARTHAN, AGED 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT 4H FLAT,
CHELOOR TOWERS, POOTHOL VILLAGE DESOM,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680003
2 MAVIS DAVIS, AGED 57 YEARS
Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015,
1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022
10
2025:KER:61859
S/O MALIYEKKAL DAVID, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KANIMANGALAM DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680027
BY ADVS.
SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
SMT.MEERA P.
SHRI.ABRAHAM BABU KALLIVAYALIL
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.08.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL.1280/2015 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015, 1282/2015,
1295/2015 & O.P.(FC)No. 318/2022
11
2025:KER:61859
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat Appeal Nos.1280/2015, 1281/2015,
1282/2015 & 1295/2015 &
O.P.(FC)No.318/2022
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
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
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. 318/202221
2025:KER:61859of 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. 318/202226
2025:KER:61859Embassy, 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. 318/202227
2025:KER:61859the 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 NA10.30 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. 318/202231
2025:KER:618594 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. 318/202232
2025:KER:61859requisite 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. 318/202243
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. 318/202257
2025:KER:61859ഭൂമവി 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. 318/202265
2025:KER:61859appellant 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. 318/202269
2025:KER:61859is 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