Identity proof and decree execution under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act upheld, with the remand set aside and objection rejected.

A village officer certificate and the absence of any competing claimant were sufficient to establish that A.P. Thomas and Tomy Peter were the same person, so the Tribunal's remand on identity was unsustainable. A petition was not defeated by an incorrect reference to Article 227 because a wrong mention of the provision does not invalidate an otherwise maintainable proceeding; it was treated as one under Article 226 and the objection was rejected. Under Section 76 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the award in favour of the depositor was deemed executable as a civil court decree, so the execution challenge failed and the award was restored for execution.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the identity of the person claiming under the names A.P. Thomas and Tomy Peter stood established so as to render the remand on that question unsustainable; (ii) whether the Original Petition challenging the Tribunal order was maintainable notwithstanding the reference to Article 227 of the Constitution of India; (iii) whether the award passed in favour of the depositor could be executed as a decree and the execution challenge under Section 76 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act was liable to succeed.

Issue (i): Whether the identity of the person claiming under the names A.P. Thomas and Tomy Peter stood established so as to render the remand on that question unsustainable.

Analysis: The record contained a village officer certificate stating that A.P. Thomas and Tomy Peter were one and the same person. The Tribunal's remand was found to have ignored the real dispute, and the further circumstance that no other person had claimed the fixed deposits under the name Tomy Peter supported the conclusion that the identity issue had been sufficiently established.

Conclusion: The identity of A.P. Thomas alias Tomy Peter was held to be established, and the remand on that aspect was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Original Petition challenging the Tribunal order was maintainable notwithstanding the reference to Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court accepted the settled principle that a wrong mention or non-mention of the provision does not defeat an otherwise maintainable proceeding. The petition was treated as one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the objection to maintainability based on the reference to Article 227 was rejected.

Conclusion: The petition was held maintainable and the objection was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the award passed in favour of the depositor could be executed as a decree and the execution challenge under Section 76 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act was liable to succeed.

Analysis: Section 76 provides that an award or decision under the Act, if not carried out, is to be deemed a decree of a civil court and executed in the same manner. In view of this statutory scheme, the challenge to execution lacked merit.

Conclusion: The execution challenge failed and the award was held executable in the manner of a civil court decree.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's remand was allowed, while the challenge to execution of the award was dismissed, leaving the parties with a mixed result and the award restored for execution.

---