Jharkhand High Court
Jibsa Devi vs Kamla Devi @ Lamla Devi W/O Mahabir Pal @ on 22 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
[2025:JHHC:20066]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 07 of 2025
Jibsa Devi, aged about 43 years, W/o Ramesh Pal
and D/o Late Deonandan Mahto, R/o vill-
Cherwadih, P.o-Purnanagar, P.s- Nagar Untari, Dist
- Garhwa, presently at Vill-Dist- Garhwa Bisunpura,
P.O- kocheya, P.S Nagar Untari Adhar no.
491037591817.
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Kamla Devi @ Lamla Devi W/o Mahabir pal @
Vira pal and D/o late Deonandan Mahto Resident of
village Patihari P.O- Banka P.S- Meral Distt-
Garhwa (Jharkhand).
2. Sakunti Devi w/o Harihar Pal and D/o Late
Deonandan Mahto R/o village Chatania P.O-Lamari
P.S- kandi Distt-Garhwa
3. Sona Devi w/o Birjhu Pal and D/o late
Deonandan Mahto R/o Village Dhabaria, P.O,P.S-
Kandi Distt- Garhwa
4. Barti Devi W/o Manoj Pal and D/o Late
Deonandan Mahto R/o village Ratangarh P.O,P.S-
Kandi Distt- Garhwa
5. Yashoda devi W/o uday pal and D/o Late
Deonandan Mahto R/o village & P.O- Banka P.S-
Meral Distt- Garhwa
6. Jeera Devi W/o Manish Pal and D/O Late
Deonandan Mahto R/o village, P.O- Bardiha P.S-
Bardiha Distt- Garhwa
7. Prabha Devi W/o Rajeshwar Pal and D/o Late
Deonandan Mahto R/o village, P.O- Joga P.S-Untari
Road Distt-Palamau
8. Tulsi Pal @ Tulsi Mahto
-1-
[2025:JHHC:20066]
9. Munshi Pal @ Munshi Mahto
Both serial 8and 9 S/o late Ramdas Pal
and resident of Village Bishunpura P.O- Kocheya
P.S.- Bishunpura Distt-Garhwa
10. Gopal Pal S/o late Manki Pal
11. Krishna Pal S/o late Manki Pal
12. Manoj Pal S/o late Nandu Pal
13. Rinda Kumari ( minor) D/o late Nandu Pal
14. Kanchan Kumari(minor) D/o late Nandu Pal
Serial 13 and 14 minors (as their parents died)
represented through their elder brother said Manoj
pal, serial no 10 to 14 are resident of village
Bishunpura P.O- Kocheya P.S Bishunpura District -
Garhwa.
15. Khakhanu Pal, S/o late Ramyad Pal
16. Bionod Pal S/o Khakhan Pal, serial No 15 and
16 resident of village Nagdarwa P.o- Farathia P.s
and District- Garhwa
17. Kabutari devi w/o Ramnath Pal resident of
Village - Jawar P.O,P.s Balrampur District-
Balrampur (Chhatisgarh)
18. Koshila Devi W/o Sachidanand pal R/O village
Nagdarwa P.o- Farathia P.s and District- Garhwa
19. Amola Devi W/o Tahal Pal R/o village patharia
P.o- parhua P.s-Nagar untari Dist- Garhwa
20. Chandrawati Devi W/o Ramji Pal R/o Vill+P.O-
Adhaura P.s Nagar untari, Dist- Garhwa
21. Kameshwar Pal S/o Durgi pal
22. Arjun pal (Minor) S/o Kameshwar Pal
23. Bablu Pal (Minor) s/o Kameshwar Pal,
Serial 22 and 23 represented through
-2-
[2025:JHHC:20066]
their father Kameshwar Pal serial No. 21 to 23
resident of village Puraini P.O, P.S-Nagar Untari
Dist- Garhwa
24. Urmila Devi W/o Pallu Pal R/o vill- Polpol P.O-
Pokhraha Ps- Satbarwa Dist- Palamau.
25. Mukul Pal S/o Motichand Pal R/o vill-
Chiraiyatanr P.O.- Chandani P.S-Kharaundhi Dist-
Garhwa.
26. Para Devi w/o Vishwanath Pal R/o vill-
Pachpadwa P.O- Soh P.S. and Dist- Garhwa
27. Shiv Prasad pal S/o late Ram Sharan Pal
28. Devendra pal S/o late Shivnath Pal
29. Dinanath pal S/o late Ram Sharan Pal
Serial 27 to 29 R/o vill- Chiraiyatanr P.O.-
Chandni P.S.-Kharaundhi Dist- Garhwa.
30. Kunti Devi W/o Maluki Pal R/o village-
Bhagodih P.O, P.S- Ramna Distt- Garhwa
31. Fula Devi W/o Gamhira Pal R/o vill- Pindariyan
P.O- Chapri P.S- Bhawnathpur Distt- Garhwa.
..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Kinkar, Advocate.
For the O.P. Nos. 1 to 9 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate
For the O.P. Nos. 10 to 31: Mr. Aman Mukherjee, Advocate.
------
07/ 22.07.2025 Heard Mr. Ram Kinkar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, learned counsel appearing for
the O.P. Nos. 1 to 9 and Mr. Aman Mukherjee, learned counsel
appearing for the O.P. Nos. 10 to 31.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside
the award dated 12.11.2022, passed by the Lok Adalat, Garhwa, in O.S.
[2025:JHHC:20066]
No. 143 of 2019.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner herein namely Jibsa Devi along with her sister-the present
O.P. No. 1 Kamla Devi @ Lamla Devi brought the Partition Suit No. 11
of 2019 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Garhwa,
which was subsequently transferred after change of pecuniary
jurisdiction to the court of the learned Munsif, Garhwa and the same
being re-numbered as O.S. No. 143 of 2019 against the defendants
seeking reliefs therein that a Preliminary decree of 1/8th share in the
land of Schedule- A of the plaint and 1/16th share in the land and house
of schedule- B of the plaint, be passed for each of the plaintiffs and
thereafter by appointing of Batwara Commissioner takhta of each of the
plaintiffs in the suit land be carved out and after confirmation of final
decree of takhtas of both the plaintiffs be prepared and the plaintiffs be
put in possession of their so carved out takhta through the process of
the court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after
issuance of the summons, the defendants appeared in the suit and filed
their written statement on 24.06.2019. He further submits that the said
suit was sent for mediation before the Mediation Centre, Garhwa and
consequently, it was registered as M.C. Case No. 467 of 2022. He
submits that the petitioner herein is the plaintiff No. 1 in the said suit
has not appeared in the Mediation and collusively the settlement has
been made between the other plaintiffs as well as the defendants in
absence of the present petitioner and on the basis of the said, the matter
was sent to the Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat passed the award dated
12.11.2022 in O.S. No. 143 of 2019 and the suit was disposed of in
[2025:JHHC:20066]
terms of the order dated 12.11.2022. He further submits that the
intervenors have also filed petition in the said Misc. Case No. 02 of
2023 arising out of O.S. No. 143 of 2019 stating that they have not been
made party in the said suit on the ground that the suit land is also their
ancestral land being the descendent of common ancestor Lochi Mahto
and the suit has been compromised behind their back and the
intervenors' petition was allowed by the order dated 08.08.2023. He
submits that the said intervention petition was filed in the
Miscellaneous Case No. 02 of 2023, which was meant for recalling the
order dated 12.11.2022, whereby, on the basis of the award, the suit has
been disposed of. He then submits that in view of that in absence of
intervenors also, the award has been passed and the learned court has
dismissed the miscellaneous petition No. 02 of 2023 on the ground of
jurisdiction by the order dated 28.08.2024.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits
that erroneously Misc. Case No. 02 of 2024 has been filed before the
learned court, however, the remedy was only to move before this court
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. On these
grounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
impugned award may kindly be set aside and the original suit may
kindly be restored to its original file.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties have
opposed the prayer and submit that intentionally the petitioner, who is
plaintiff No. 2 in the suit has not appeared in the mediation before the
Lok Adalat, in view of that the said award has been passed.
7. On query of the court with the learned counsel appearing
for the opposite parties, they fairly submit that the petitioner herein has
[2025:JHHC:20066]
not signed the compromise petition and she was also absent before the
Lok Adalat.
8. In the aforesaid background, this court has to consider as to
whether the said award can be quashed by this court under Article 227
of the Constitution of India or not.
9. It is well settled in law that Lok Adalats have no
adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their functions relate purely to
conciliation. A Lok Adalat determines the reference on the basis of a
compromise or settlement between the parties and puts it seal of
confirmation by making the award in terms of compromise. It is equally
well settled legal proposition that if any party wants to challenge the
award based on settlement, the same can be examined in a writ petition
under Article 226 and/or 227 on very limited grounds. In Kiran Singh
& Ors. Versus Chaman Paswan & Ors., reported in AIR 1954 SC 340,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a judgment or decree obtained
by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law
and its invalidity can be challenged even in collateral proceedings.
Similar view has been taken in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu
(dead) by L.Rs. Versus Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., reported in
AIR 1994 SC 853.
10. It is further well known that the award of a Lok Adalat is
not a result of a contest on merits, just as a regular suit by a Court in a
regular trial is, however it is as equal and on par with a decree on
compromise and will have same binding effect and be conclusive.
Reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of P.T. Thomas Versus Thomas Job,
reported in (2005) 6 SCC 4781.
[2025:JHHC:20066]
11. It is trite law that validity of a compromise decree can be
challenged on the ground that it was obtained by playing fraud. In this
regard, reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of A.A. Gopalkrishnan Versus Cochin
Devaswom Board & Ors., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 482.
12. Since the award passed by the Lok Adalat is akin to a
compromise decree, its validity can be challenged by a party in a writ
petition on the ground that the same has been obtained by playing
fraud. "Fraud" means and includes any of the following acts committed
by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with
intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to
enter into the contract:- (1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not
true by one who does not believe it to be true; (2) the active
concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; (3)
a promise made without intention of performing it; (4) any other act
fitted to deceive; (5) any such act or omission as the law specially
declares to be fraudulent and it can be found in the Advanced Law
Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Third Edition Reprint 2007.
13. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Punjab Versus Jalour Singh, reported in
(2008) 2 SCC 660, the law laid down in that judgment is binding on all
the Courts in the country by virtue of mandate of Article 141 of the
Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in no uncertain
terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be
done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227
of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very
limited grounds. In the light of clear pronouncement of the law by the
[2025:JHHC:20066]
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the only remedy available to the aggrieved
person has to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of
the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award
passed by the Lok Adalat. It is then for the writ Court to decide as to
whether any ground was made out by the petitioner for quashing the
award and, if so, whether those grounds are sufficient for its quashing
or not.
14. In light of the above discussions, what has emerged from
the above and coming to the facts of the present case, it is an admitted
position that the plaintiff No. 2, who is the petitioner herein has not
signed the compromise petition and she was also not before the Lok
Adalat and this fact has also been accepted on the query of the court
from the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties that the
petitioner herein has not signed on the compromise and she was also
not present before the Lok Adalat.
15. In view of the above and considering the admitted position
that the petitioner was not the signatory of the compromise and on the
basis of that compromise the suit has been disposed of, which is not in
accordance with law. Further it transpires that the petitioner herein
erroneously filed a miscellaneous case before the learned court to recall
the award and that court has rightly passed the said order on the point
of jurisdiction.
16. In view of the above discussion, the only remedy is to
challenge the award of the Lok Adalat on limited ground either under
Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
17. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the award
dated 12.11.2022, passed by the Lok Adalat, Garhwa, in O.S. No. 143
[2025:JHHC:20066]
of 2019 including the order dated 12.11.2022, whereby, the said
partition suit has been disposed of, are hereby, set aside. In light of that
the original partition suit, being O.S. No. 143 of 2019 is restored to the
file of the learned court to decide the same in accordance with law.
18. The petitioner herein and the opposite parties shall remain
present before the learned court on 11.08.2025 at 10.30 A.M.
19. The learned court will proceed with the suit in accordance
with law, without being prejudiced to this order.
20. With the above observation, this petition is allowed and
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
[A.F.R.]
