High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-07-24Writ petition dismissed

Gracykutty Geroge W/o Varkey George v. Elangulam Service Co-Operative Bank and Secretary, Elangulam Service Co-Operative Bank, and the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kanji rappally

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.17516 of 2014

Neutral Citation::null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2019-07-24
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed. The court held that there is no reason to interfere with the 3rd respondent’s order rejecting Ext.P6, noting the petitioner has effective remedies under Chapter XIII of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, and that the petitioner may challenge Ext.P8 in appeal proceedings without the court adjudicating on the merits of the signature issue in this petition.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Gracykutty Geroge W/o Varkey George, Cheripurathu House, Elamgulam P.O, Kottayam District

Respondents

The Elangulam Service Co-Operative Bank represented by its Secretary, Office of the Elangulam Service Co-Operative Bank, Koora li P.O, Kottayam-686522
Secretary, The Elangulam Service Co-Operative Bank, Office of the Elangulam Service Co-Operative Bank, Koora li P.O, Kottayam-6896522
Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kanjirappally, Office of the Assistant Registrar of Co operative Societies, Kanjirappally P.O, Kottayam District-686507

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Liji J. Vadakedom

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Tom Jose, SNR. Government Pleader; Sri. Renil Anto

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner challenges Ext.P8, an order of the Assistant Registrar (General) refusing to forward signatures on Exts.P2, P3 and P4 for handwriting analysis in ARC No.186/2009. The dispute centers on a loan facility claimed by the 1st respondent co‑operative bank, alleging that the petitioner received ₹5 lakhs on 27.09.1995 and executed a Venkatapathram mortgage deed as security, with the bank contending that the petitioner obtained funds by executing the instrument and receipts. The petitioner admits the mortgage but contends she did not avail the loan and asserts that the signatures appearing in Exts.P2 (Venkatapathram), P3 (loan application), and P4 (receipts) differ from her admitted signatures; she sought handwriting verification through Ext.P6. The 3rd respondent rejected Ext.P6, holding that the petitioner’s signatures are visibly different across documents and that forwarding to an expert is unwarranted. The petitioner invokes a judgment in Aravindakshan Nair v. Essen Bankers (2007 3 KLT 718) to argue that courts should not adjudicate disputed signatures but may refer to experts. The court, while noting the remedies under Chapter XIII of the Kerala Co‑operative Societies Act, 1969, declines to interfere with the 3rd respondent’s order, and dismisses the writ petition, leaving objections open in appeal without deciding the merits here.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 - Chapter XIII

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Not advisable for the Court to examine the genuineness of disputed signatures; court may forward signatures for expert opinion as appropriate, a principle followed in Aravindakshan Nair v. Essen Bankers (2007 3 KLT 718).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues Ext.P8 is erroneous as the petitioner’s signatures in Exts.P2, P3 and P4 do not correspond with her admitted signatures. She sought to have the signatures examined by a handwriting expert and contends that the 3rd respondent is not a handwriting expert, invoking the Aravindakshan Nair v. Essen Bankers principle that the court should not determine disputed signatures, and should refer the matter to an expert. The petitioner emphasises that the ARC proceedings began in 2009 and that there is an ongoing dispute as to authenticity and that the documents in question bear inconsistent signatures, including the Vakalat. The petitioner asserts remedies under Chapter XIII of the Kerala Co‑operative Societies Act, 1969 and seeks relief without prejudice to those rights.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the signatures across Exts.P2, P3, P4 and the Vakalat are not uniform, indicating manipulation. They argue that the 3rd respondent rightly refused Ext.P6 because the signatures he observed were visibly different and there was no basis to forward them to a handwriting expert; they contend the writ petition is an attempt to stall the ARC proceedings and that the petition is devoid of merit. They rely on the bank’s alleged losses due to irregularities and assert that the order Ext.P8 is just and proper.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Aravindakshan Nair v. Essen Bankers	(2007) 3 KLT 718	Positive	Court cites this authority to support not determining disputed signatures in court and favoring referral to expert opinion where appropriate.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Gracykutty Geroge W/o Varkey George v. Elangulam Service Co-Operative Bank and Secretary, Elangulam Service Co-Operative Bank, and the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kanji rappally and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.17516 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER:** **GRACYKUTTY GEROGE W/O.VARKEY GEORGE,CHERIPURATHU HOUSE, ELAMGULAM.P.O,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE ELANGULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE ELANGULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOORALI.P.O,KOTTAYAM-686522.** **2 SECRETARY THE ELANGULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, OFFICE OF THE ELANGULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOORALI.P.O,KOTTAYAM-6896522.** **3 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KANJIRAPPAPLLY,** **OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KANJIRAPPALLY.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686507.** **BY ADVS. SRI.TOM JOSE SNR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RENIL ANTO** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) No.17516 of 2014** **2** ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) by which Ext.P6 petition filed by the petitioner seeking to send the signatures appeared in the loan documents for examination by handwriting expert, stands rejected. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in ARC No.186/2009 before the 3[rd] respondent - Assistant Registrar. The said case is filed by the 1[st] respondent - Co-operative Society alleging that the petitioner has received ₹5 lakhs on 27.09.1995 but, defaulted in repayment. The 1[st] respondent - Society alleged that by executing a mortgage deed as a security document, the petitioner availed facility to receive amount upto ₹5 lakhs as and when she executes 'Venkatapathram' in favour of the Bank. The 1[st] respondent alleged that the petitioner has received the said ₹5 lakhs, after executing the 'Venkatapathram'. **WP(C) No.17516 of 2014** **3** 3. The petitioner states that she filed written statement in the abovementioned arbitration case contending that she did not avail the loan facility. The signatures seen in Ext.P2 'Venkatapathram' and Ext.P3 loan application as also in Ext.P4 receipts vary. The petitioner filed a petition in the ARC proceedings to send the signatures in Exts.P2, P3 and P4 loan documents to be examined by a handwriting expert. The 1[st] respondent has not disputed that Ext.A4 mortgage deed is executed by the petitioner. Therefore, the 1[st] respondent cannot have any objection in sending the documents in question for signature verification. However, the 3[rd] respondent - Assistant Registrar rejected Ext.P6 petition for signature verification finding that the signatures of the petitioner vary on a plain examination. On these premises, the application for signature verification has been rejected by the 3[rd] respondent as per Ext.P8. 4. Ext.P8 is under challenge. The petitioner states that the 3[rd] respondent is not an expert in the matter of examining or comparing signatures. This Court in the **WP(C) No.17516 of 2014** **4** judgment in _**Aravindakshan Nair v. Essen Bankers** [2007 3 KLT 718]_ has held that it is not advisable for the Court to examine the genuineness of the signatures which are disputed. Therefore, the 3[rd] respondent ought to have sent the signatures for expert opinion. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 opposed the writ petition filing counter affidavit. In their counter affidavit, respondents 1 and 2 stated that petitioner's husband Mr.Varkey George, in connivance with the then Secretary, made many manipulations in the bank, as a consequence of which the bank has suffered considerably. Respondents 1 and 2 urged that the order passed by the 3[rd] respondent dismissing Ext.P6 petition is just and proper. On verification of the signatures of the petitioner in Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P7, it is revealed that there exists difference in the signatures. Even in the Vakalat in Ext.P6 petition, the signature of the petitioner differs. In the circumstances, the 3[rd] respondent rightly rejected Ext.P6 petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner **WP(C) No.17516 of 2014** **5** and respondents 1 and 2. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3[rd] respondent. 7. The 3[rd] respondent has considered the request of the petitioner for forwarding the signatures of the petitioner for expert opinion. The 3[rd] respondent found that the signatures of the petitioner in Exts.A2 and A5 and the signature in Ext.A4 visibly differs. The 3[rd] respondent also perused Vakalat signed by the petitioner and found that the signature in the Vakalat also differs. In the circumstances, the 3[rd] respondent found that there is no point in forwarding the documents for signature verification. 8. The arbitration proceedings started in the year 2009. After verification of relevant documents, the 3[rd] respondent found that there is visible difference in respect of the signatures of the petitioner in various documents produced before him. Therefore, the 3[rd] respondent found not necessary to forward the documents for signature verification to an expert. I find that it is not necessary to interfere with the proceedings of the 3[rd] respondent at this stage. Against the **WP(C) No.17516 of 2014** **6** final order that may be passed by the 3[rd] respondent in ARC No.186/2009, the petitioner has effective remedies under Chapter XIII of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Therefore, the proceedings need not be stalled in view of Ext.P8 order. In the circumstances, I find that the writ petition is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, I make it clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to urge all her objections against Ext.P8 order in the appeal proceedings that the petitioner may resort to, and this Court has not adjudicated on the merit of the issue involved. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/24.07.2019 **WP(C) No.17516 of 2014** **7** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ARC NO.186/2009 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE VANKATAPATHRAM DATED 27.9.1995 PRODUCED IN EXT.P1 ARC PROCEEDINGS 27.9.1995 PRODUCED IN EXT.P1 ARC PROCEEDINGS** - **EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION DATED 27.9.1995 PRODUCED IN EXTP1 ARC PROCEEDINGS** - **EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27.9.1995 ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN ARC 186/2009** - **EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15.3.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN ARC 186/2009 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR SENDING THE SIGNATURES OF THE PETITIONER FOR AN EXPERT OPINION** - **EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE MORTGAGE DEED PRODUCED AS EXT.P4 IN ARC 190/95 WHEREIN EXISTS THE ADMITTED SIGNATURE OF THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.3.2014 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN ARC 186/2009.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.2.2001 IN OP.10838/2000.** **WP(C) No.17516 of 2014** **8** **R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER AS GO(RT) NO.139/2002/41 DATED 27.4.2002.** **R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE CASE DIARY OF ARC.186/2009 OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KANJIRAPPALLY.**