Legal heirs cannot contest the validity of awards in execution proceedings; challenges must be made directly against the awards.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are the legal heirs of the late Geo Jose, who passed away on 27.10.2020. According to the 4^th respondent bank, late Geo Jose had availed two loans from the 4^th respondent bank. On default being committed, the bank initiated proceedings under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969 and obtained two separate Awards determining the liability of late Geo Jose. The Awards are on record, along with a counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent as Exts.R4(a) and R4(b). Ext.R4(a) Award is dated 07.06.2018, and Ext.R4(b) Award is dated 06.03.2020. Thus, it is clear that even before late Geo Jose passed away, the 4^th respondent bank had obtained Awards determining the liability under the two loans allegedly availed by him. According to the counter affidavit filed by the 4^th respondent, after the Awards were passed, late Geo Jose had also made an application for settlement of the liability in an Adalat. It is also stated that though late Geo Jose was permitted to settle the liability in the Adalat, he did not comply with the terms of the settlement.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a perusal of Exhibits P3 and P4, which are the applications stated to have been filed for availing the loans, will indicate that Exhibit P4 application for loan is in Malayalam, while Exhibit P3 application is in English. It is submitted that, in Exhibit R4(c), produced along with the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent, which is stated to be an acknowledgement in respect of the summons issued to late Geo Jose, the signature is totally different. It is submitted that, though the petitioners, as legal heirs of late Geo Jose, had sought certain documents in connection with the loans, the same were also not provided. It is submitted that, even in Exhibit P3, it is stated that the signature of the borrower has to be obtained. It is submitted that the availment of the loans itself by late Geo Jose is doubtful in the aforesaid circumstances. It is submitted that fraud vitiates the entire proceedings and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on Azimullah and Others V. Ma Nyein May ; AIR 1936 Rangoon 399 to contend that where execution is levied against legal representatives, the court should proceed with care and caution. It is submitted that the aforesaid decision has been quoted with approval by this Court in Letha @ Hema Latha V. U.

Damodaran; 2025 KHC OnLine 1824

3. Learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the petitioners. Primarily, it is contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to contend that all the proceedings culminating in the Awards obtained by the 4^th respondent are fraudulent. It is submitted that late Geo Jose had raised no such contention before the arbitrator despite receipt of the summons. It is submitted that the petitioners have also not challenged the Awards in any manner, and they cannot be heard to contend in proceedings for execution of those Awards that the Awards were obtained fraudulently. It is submitted that the officer executing the Awards cannot go behind the Awards, and since the Awards have become final, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that the Awards are vitiated and therefore execution cannot be levied. It is submitted that the bank is proceeding against the assets of the late Geo Jose in the hands of the petitioners and also against the property mortgaged for securing the repayment of the loans. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in t