Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Smt.Gandhavarapu Chandramani ... vs The Lok Adalat Bench on 13 September, 2023

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
                                    AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                    WRIT PETITION No.30181 of 2018

ORDER:- (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)


       This writ petition is filed challenging the legal validity of

the award dated 08.04.2017 passed by the Lok Adalat and to

set aside the same.


2.     Heard     learned      counsel      for    the     petitioner,    Sri

S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for 1st

respondent and learned counsel for 2nd respondent.                      None

appeared for 3rd respondent though served with notice.


3.     Facts

relevant to dispose of this writ petition may briefly

be stated as follows:

The 3rd respondent claims to be the owner of the plaint

schedule property in O.S.No.654 of 2016 on the file of learned

XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The said plaint

schedule property is an extent of Ac.5.00 cents covered by

Sy.No.42/2 situated in Mudsarlova village of Visakhapatnam

District. She executed an agreement to sell in favour of the 2 nd

respondent, agreeing to sell the said property. As the 3rd

respondent failed to execute a registered sale deed, the 2 nd

respondent filed the aforesaid suit O.S.No.654 of 2016 for

specific performance of contract. During the pendency of the

said suit, both the plaintiff and the defendant in the said suit,

who are the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein, have entered into a

compromise. On their request, the matter was referred to Lok

Adalat for settlement. As per the terms of the compromise

before the Lok Adalat, the 3rd respondent/defendant agreed to

sell the said property to the 2nd respondent/plaintiff for a sum

of Rs.1,25,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.25,00,000/- per acre and

Rs.8,00,000/- was paid by way of cash on 23.11.2018,

Rs.6,00,000/- was paid on 04.02.2011 by way of cash,

Rs.46,00,000/- was paid on 30.12.2016 by way of cash and

Rs.25,00,000/- was paid by way of cheque dated 31.12.2016.

It is agreed that the balance sum of Rs.40,00,000/- shall be

paid at the time of registering the sale deed and it is further

stated in the terms of the compromise that the defendant/2nd

respondent shall pursue proceedings before the CCLA,

Vijayawada to obtain a patta in respect of the said property in

their favour from the competent authority and that the balance

sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- is to be paid after the said

patta was obtained. With the above said terms of the

compromise, the impugned award was passed.

4. Now, the petitioner, who is not a party to the said suit and

who is not a party to the said award, being a third party to the

said suit and the award, has filed this writ petition challenging

the legal validity of the impugned award.

5. According to the case pleaded by the writ petitioner, the

3rd respondent herein is only the relative of her mother and the

plaint schedule property is an assigned land and it was

assigned to her mother by name Kasi Rajeswari under a D-

patta in the year 1954 and her mother died intestate and as

such, she succeeded to the said property as the legal heir of the

assignee Kasi Rajeswari. Therefore, the 3rd respondent has no

title to the said property and she cannot execute any agreement

to sell in favour of the 2nd respondent and she also cannot

execute any registered sale deed in respect of the said property

and the said award that was obtained is not valid under law. It

is stated that said award was obtained by playing fraud.

6. The case of the 3rd respondent, who is the defendant in

the said suit, is that she is the sister of the husband of Kasi

Rajeswari and Kasi Rajeswari executed a Will dated 08.02.1993

bequeathing the said plaint schedule property in her favour and

thereafter, Kasi Rajeswari died and the Will came into force and

she became the absolute owner of the said property and she

executed an agreement to sell in favour of the 2nd respondent

and thereafter in a suit filed by the 2nd respondent for specific

performance of contract, that they entered into compromise

with the above terms and the claim made by her for grant of

ryotwari patta before the CCLA is pending and after obtaining

the said ryotwari patta, that a registered sale deed is to be

executed in favour of the 2nd respondent.

7. The same is the case pleaded by the 2nd respondent

herein.

8. Now, the question is whether the impugned award was

obtained by fraud as alleged by the petitioner, who is a

third party to the said award or not?

9. Admittedly, according to the case pleaded by both the

parties, the patta stands in the name of Kasi Rajeswari.

According to the petitioner, it was D-patta and according to the

3rd respondent herein, it was a ryotwari patta and she is also

claiming for issuance of a ryotwari patta before the CCLA and

the said claim is pending. Even assuming for a moment that it

was a D-patta as claimed by the petitioner herein, it is now

settled law that the assignee can execute a Will in respect of the

said assigned land. The land assigned under a D-patta has to

be enjoyed by the assignee during her lifetime without any right

of alienation. But the said land can be bequeathed by way of a

Will as per settled law. Now the 3rd respondent claims that she

is the sister of husband of Kasi Rajeswari and she has executed

a Will in her favour on 08.02.1993. Therefore, by virtue of the

right claimed by her under the Will, it is stated that she has

executed an agreement to sell in favour of the 2nd respondent

herein and thereafter a suit for specific performance was filed

and the present award came to be passed as per the terms of

compromise arrived at by both of them. Therefore, if the

petitioner being the daughter of Kasi Rajeswari, is aggrieved by

execution of the said Will, she has to question the validity of the

said Will and she has to claim right over the said property as

legal heir of Kasi Rajeswari by instituting a comprehensive suit

to that effect in appropriate civil Court. But on that ground,

the petitioner, being a third party to the suit, cannot challenge

the said award by way of filing a writ petition. The obvious

reason is several complicated disputed questions of fact are

involved in the lis as per the case pleaded by the petitioner.

The fact whether the land is an assigned land as claimed by the

petitioner or it is a patta land as claimed by the 3rd respondent,

is to be decided. Then the validity of the Will said to have been

executed by Kasi Rajeswari in favour of the 3rd respondent

herein is another disputed question of fact that has to be

adjudicated. In order to adjudicate the said complicated

disputed questions of fact, voluminous evidence is required to

be adduced by both the parties and the same has to be

appreciated for adjudication of the said controversy involved in

the lis. The same cannot be done in the Writ Court. It is only

the civil Court which is competent to consider the said issues

and adjudicate the same after considering the evidence that

may be adduced by both the parties before it.

10. No doubt, as contended by learned counsel for the

petitioner, there is no absolute bar for filing a writ petition to

challenge the award by a third party. But third party can

challenge the award only on limited grounds. At the same time,

it is also settled law that if complicated disputed questions of

fact are involved in the lis and when it requires voluminous

evidence to adjudicate the same, then the third party is to be

allowed to pursue his remedy in the competent civil Court. The

legal position in this regard is not res nova and the same has

been well settled. The Division Bench of the Erstwhile High

Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Batchu Subba

Lakshmi v. Sannidhi Srinivasulu1, held at para No.8 as

follows:

"The parties to the compromise or settlement, which is the basis for award of Lok Adalat, no doubt entitled to challenge the award on any of the grounds referred to herein above grounds. Ordinarily, a third party cannot challenge the award in a writ petition even if such award causes prejudice. The remedy of such party would be to institute a separate suit or proceeding for necessary redressal and seek appropriate decree of declaration by filing a suit within the period of limitation prescribed under law. Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, any person entitled to legal character or any right as to any property, may file a suit for declaration. Under this provision, any person can even institute a suit for declaration that the decree passed by Civil Court in an earlier suit is not binding on him. When a civil Court can even declare that an earlier decree of the Court is not binding on the party before it, we do not see any objection for a third party to institute a suit in a civil Court seeking a declaration that the award of Lok Adalat is not binding on him/her subject to the law of limitation. We however hasten to add that there may be extraordinary cases where a third party is meted with injustice at the behest of two or more conniving and colluding parties, who may have obtained an award of Lok Adalat by fraud or misrepresentation only to defeat the rights of such third party. In such cases within a reasonable period such third party may maintain a writ

2010 (1) ALT 483 (DB)

petition. But in such cases, there should be prima facie evidence of fraud or misrepresentation or collusion in obtaining the award of Lok Adalat. Even if such allegations are made and the question involves complicated questions of fact requiring voluminous evidence, third party should be left to seek remedy in a civil Court rather than preferring extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of Constitution."

11. Therefore, as per the law laid down in the said judgment,

it is clear that generally only the parties to the award can

challenge the said award. But in exceptional cases, upon

establishing the fraud, the third party can challenge the award.

Further, it is clarified in the said judgment that when disputed

questions of fact are involved and when voluminous evidence is

required to be adduced to adjudicate the same, then it is held

that the third party should be left to seek remedy in a civil

Court rather than preferring extraordinary remedy under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. The last three lines in the aforesaid paragraph are

significant to note in this context and we would like to reiterate

the same which reads as follows:

"Even if such allegations are made and the question involves complicated questions of fact requiring voluminous evidence, third party should be left to seek remedy in a civil Court rather than preferring extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of Constitution."

13. This judgment was again followed by another Division

Bench subsequently in the case of Vadiga Amose v. Vadiga

Anjaneyulu and others2. As noticed supra, there are certain

complicated disputed questions of fact that are involved in this

lis and evidence is required to resolve the said disputed

questions of fact. So, we are of the considered opinion that the

writ petitioner has to seek the said remedy in a civil Court by

filing a comprehensive suit to that effect.

14. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the

petitioner of the Telangana High Court referred in the case of

P.Naresh Kumar v. The Secretary Legal Services Authority

and others3, is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, there