Dismissed

Fathima Mp v. Idbi Bank

DRT7 Jul 2026SA/598/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal rejected a securitization application. It held the application not maintainable because the appellant lacked locus standi. The sale deed was verified against a valid general power of attorney, and the claims of forgery were rejected given the registration timeline and power conferred.

What the court decided

AI extract

Fathima Mp versus Idbi Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 07^th DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶4

PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L. [DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

NDN (SA) No. 1308 of 2026

¶6

Between

¶7

Fathima M.P., W/o late Koya Edakkora, Poonathil House, Mundaikkal Thazham P.O., Kottamparamb, Kozhikode – 673 008.

¶8

--Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

The IDBI Bank Ltd. Having its Branch office at Kochi, Kacheripady Park, Kacheripady Junction, Kerala – 682 018 Rep. by Dy. General Manager.

¶11

The Authorized Officer, IDBI Bank Ltd., Retail Recovery, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682 036.

¶12

Muhammed Shafi Chalil

¶13

S/o Kussayi Chalil, Chalil House, Kolappuram North PO A R Nagar Vengara,

¶14

Malappuram – 676 305.

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

NDN (SA) No.1308/2026 )

¶17

Arakkalakat Sirajuddin,

¶18

S/o Ummer P.O., K. Puram, License No. MDA 199, MSA 588, (Document Writer) Malappuram – 676 307.

¶19

K.P. Girishkumar,

¶20

Sub Registrar, Chevayur Sub Registrar Office, Chevayur P.O., Kozhikode – 673 017.

¶21

--Defendants

¶22

This Securitization Application (NDN) coming on 30.06.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Raynold Fernandez the Counsel for the applicant and upon hearing the arguments of representing Counsel for the applicant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This S.A has been filed praying to declare that the measures taken by the 1^st defendant bank and the 2^nd defendant Authorized Officer in respect of the secured asset is illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable and liable to be set aside and to set aside all proceedings initiated pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode including the actions taken by the Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset and to declare that the alleged mortgage and security interest claimed by the 1^st defendant bank is unenforceable.

¶25

This S.A has been placed by the Registry before this Tribunal to decide the maintainability of the S.A.

¶26

According to the applicant, the SA scheduled property originally belonged to her husband Koya and his legal heirs. Riyas E. and Rishad E. are her sons. Koya had executed a general power of attorney datred 17.11.2022 in favour of Rishad E. After death of Koya, the 3rd defendant who is a close friend of Rishad E. somehow obtained possession of General Power of Attorney in collusion with the document writer, 4th defendant and the then Sub Registrar 5th defendant and fraudulently created Annexure-A3 sale deed for transferring the secured asset in his favour. Subsequently, the

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

NDN (SA) No.1308/2026 )

¶29

3rd defendant availed credit facility from the 1st defendant bank upon creation of equitable mortgage over the property. Due to default in repayment of the outstanding loan due, measures were initiated by the 1st defendant bank, pursuant to filing of Annexure-A5 application and A6 affidavit before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode, order came to be passed in CMP No.183/2026 appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-A7 notice stating that he would take physical possession of the secured asset.

¶30

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that signature of Rishad was forged in Annexure-A3 sale deed with intention of effecting an illegal transfer of the property in favour of the 3rd defendant in connivance with the document writer, 4th defendant and the then Sub Registrar of Chevayoor SRO, 5th defendant and that Annexure-A3 was not executed by Rishad and that therefore, the applicant filed suit before the Munsiff Court, Kozhikode challenging the validity of Annexure-A3 sale deed and that the applicant and her sons are in possession and enjoyment of the property and that therefore, the SA filed challenging the measures initiated by the 1st defendant is maintainable.

¶31

A perusal of general power of attorney dated 17.11.2022 produced by the applicant shows that it was executed by Koya in favour of his son Rishad E. authorizing him to do all kind of transactions and to transfer the house in whole or in part, and to sign on his behalf all kinds of documents, agreements, and to present them before the concerned Sub Registrar’s office and receive the remuneration amount and complete the registration etc. Hence it is evident that the above said general power of attorney has conferred absolute powers on Rishad E. to deal with the SA schedule property including sale of the property.

¶32

The applicant has not specifically averred in the SA as to how the general power of attorney came into possession of the 3rd defendant. A perusal of Annexure-A3 sale deed shows that Rishad E. executed the sale deed on behalf of his father Koya for transferring the property in favour of the 3rd defendant for valid sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- and that he has signed in all pages of Annexure-A3 sale deed in the presence of two witnesses. It is pertinent to mention that the photographs of Koya, Rishad E. and the 3rd defendant has been affixed in the front page of Annexure-A3. It is clearly recited in Annexure-A3 that the seller can take possession of the scheduled properties from today onwards. Therefore, Annexure-A3 cannot be said as a fraudulent and fabricated document. It is pertinent to mention that Annexure-A4 plaint was filed before the Munsiff Court-II, Kozhikode on 19.02.2026 ie., after the measures initiated by the 1st defendant for taking physical possession of the secured asset. Therefore, the contention of the

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

NDN (SA) No.1308/2026 )

¶35

Mj/

¶36

applicant that she and her sons are in possession and enjoyment of the property is absolutely false. Once it is established that the applicant has no locus standi to claim any right over the SA scheduled property, she is not entitled to challenge the measures initiated by the 1st defendant in respect of the SA scheduled property, which is the secured asset.

¶37

In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that SA is not maintainable.

¶38

In the result, NDN 1308/2026 (SA) stands rejected.

¶39

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 07^th day of July, 2026.

¶40

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶41

Page 4 of 4

Fathima Mp v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Fathima Mp v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Smt. Meenu Arora

Punjab National Bank versus Balwinder Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Kiran Sao Rai

Harpreet Kaur versus Indian Overseas Bank

M/S Japji Filling Station versus Bank of Baroda

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Riyaz Ahmad Tantary (Sole Prop. of M/S Riyaz and Brothers)