Karnataka High Court
Smt.Shobha W/O Rajendra Kattimani vs Smt.Rajani W/O Ravindra Kattimani on 7 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16297
RFA No. 100410 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100410 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. RAJENDRA KATTIMANI,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: CTS NO.2324 AND 2335,
MARATHA GALLI,
GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI,
PIN CODE: 591307.
2. KUMARI ROHINI D/O. RAJENDRA KATTIMANI,
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: CTS NO.2324 AND 2335,
MARATHA GALLI, GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI,
PIN CODE: 591307.
3. SMT. JAYASHREE
W/O. VIJAY HONMANI (HANMANI),
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA
AGE: 51 YEARS,
MALAGALADINNI OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KACHERI GALLI,
HONAGA, BELAGAVI,
PIN CODE: 591156.
...APPELLANTS
Location: (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. SMT. RAJANI W/O. RAVINDRA KATTIMANI,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. CTS NO.2324 AND 2335,
MARATHA GALLI, GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 591307.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16297
RFA No. 100410 of 2019
2. ROHIT S/O. RAVINDRA KATTIMANI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O:CTS NO.2324 AND 2335,
MARATHA GALLI, GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI,
PIN CODE: 591307.
3. ROHAN S/O. RAVINDRA KATTIMANI,
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: CTS NO.2324 AND 2335,
MARATHA GALLI,
GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI,
PIN CODE: 591307.
(SINCE THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IS MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO.1).
4. SMT. RAJASHREE W/O. VIJAY KORE (KORI),
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: CHANDRASEN GALLI,
CHANDAGAD, TAL: CHANDAGAD,
DIST: KOLHAPUR,
MAHARASHTRA STATE,
PIN CODE: 416509.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.S.SHETTAR & SMT. KAVYA C. SHETTAR, ADVOCATES FOR
R-1 TO R-3; R-4 SERVED)
---
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS
COURT THAT THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
24.04.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.145/2014 BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, GOKAK, BE KINDLY SET ASIDE, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL
AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE SAID ORIGINAL SUIT IN
O.S.NO.145/2014, WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS
UPON THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16297
RFA No. 100410 of 2019
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This First Appeal is filed by defendants No.2 to 4 in
O.S.No.145/2014, on the file of the Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Gokak. The suit for declaration and
injunction is decreed with cost.
2. The declaration granted by the Court reads as under:
i. Suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs.
ii. It is declared that, the decree passed in
O.S.No.58/2008 is partially canceled to
the extent of suit property.
iii. Defendants No.2 to 4 are hereby
restrained by an order of permanent
injunction from entering their names in
record of rights of suit property on the
basis of compromise decree passed in
O.S.No.58/2008.
iv. Defendants No.2 to 4 are further
restrained by an order of permanent
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16297
injunction from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit
property by the plaintiffs on the basis of
decree passed in O.S.No.58/2008.
v. Draw decree accordingly.
3. It is relevant to note that, O.S.No.58/2008 is a suit
filed by one Rajendra Kattimani, who is the husband
of the present appellant No.1. The said suit before
the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, ended in
compromise before the Lok Adalath. In terms of the
settlement arrived at between the parties, the family
properties were partitioned and the properties were
allotted to the share of the parties to the said
proceedings. The said suit was compromised on
02.08.2008.
4. The legal representatives of deceased Ravindra
Kattimani, who was one of the parties to the
compromise, filed a writ petition No.63702/2010,
challenging the Lok Adalath award.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16297
5. It is relevant to note that, Ravindra Kattimani, who
was one of the parties to the said suit, died on
18.04.2009 i.e., after the Lok Adalath award. Hence
his legal representatives have filed the said writ
petition claiming through him. In terms of the order
dated 03.06.2010, said writ petition was rejected on
the premise that the contention relating to fraud and
misrepresentation raised in the writ petition cannot
be looked into in a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. However, liberty is reserved to
the petitioners to workout the remedy in accordance
with law. The relevant portion of the order in the
writ petition reads as under:
"Reserving liberty to the petitioner to work
out her remedy in accordance with law by
instituting a suit for declaration if she so
desires, this writ petition is hereby
rejected, without reference to
respondents."
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16297
6. The writ petitioners then filed a suit in
O.S.No.145/2014 on the file of the Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Gokak, wherein they questioned part of
the Lok Adalath award, i.e., the award in respect of
Survey No.134/3 measuring 8 guntas. The award in
respect of the remaining properties covered by the
said compromise was not under challenge.
7. The present appellants were defendants No.2 to 4 in
the said suit in O.S.No.145/2014. The defendants
contended that the suit is not maintainable as the
decree passed by the Lok Adalath cannot be
questioned in a suit. They also filed an application to
reject the plaint, but the said application was
rejected on the ground that all contentions would be
considered at the time of final disposal of the case
and the suit is decreed granting the relief extracted
above.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16297
8. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and
decree, defendants No.2 to 4 are before this Court in
this appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri.Sanjay
Katageri would contend that, the impugned judgment
and decree are without jurisdiction. Once the award
is passed by the Lok Adalath, the Civil Court does not
get the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the
said award. He would contend that, there is bar
under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 to challenge the award in a Civil Court. He
would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex
Court in Bhargavi Constructions and Another Vs.
Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Others1.
10. It is also his contention that, the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in MSA No.100010/2021 in the case
of Smt.Shantawwa W/o. Balappa Bhajanatri Vs.
Shri.Hanamant Bhimappa Bhajantri has also
(2018) 13 SCC 480
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16297
taken a view that the suit challenging the Lok
Adalath award is not maintainable. Thus, he would
urge that the judgment and decree impugned before
be set aside.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs/respondents would urge that the plaintiffs
filed Writ Petition No.63702/2010 and this Court vide
order dated 03.06.2010 directed the plaintiffs to
approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of
their grievance. Thus, it is contended that the Civil
Court gets jurisdiction in view of the specific direction
issued in this case and the Trial Court has considered
the contentions raised by the parties in proper
perspective and by considering the evidence on
record, has rightly decreed the suit.
12. This Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar and perused the records.
13. The following point would arise for consideration:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16297
"Whether the Civil Court can entertain the
suit challenging the award passed by the
Lok Adalath on a compromise, if such suit
is filed by the parties to such award or any
of the parties claiming through the parties
to the said award?"
14. Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987. Section 21 reads of the said Act as under:
21. Award of Lok Adalat.--
(1)Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be
deemed to be a decree of a civil court or,
as the case may be, an order of any other
court and where a compromise or
settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok
Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-
section (1) of section 20, the court-free
paid in such case shall be refunded in the
manner provided under the Court Fees Act,
1870 (7 of 1870).
(2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall
be final and binding on all the parties to the
dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court
against the award.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16297
Section 21(2) of the said provision would make it
abundantly clear that the award passed by a Lok
Adalath is final and binding on all the parties to
the award, and no appeal shall lie to any court
against the award.
15. It is also relevant to note Regulation 12(3) of the
National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat)
Regulations, 2009
12. Pre-Litigation matters. -
(1) xxxxxxxx
(2) xxxxxxxx
(3) An award based on settlement between the
parties can be challenged only on violation of
procedure prescribed in Section 20 of the Act by
filing a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India."
On going through the aforementioned provision, it
can be noticed that Section 12 though deals with
pre-litigation matters, the principle contained in
Section 12(3) would also apply to the awards passed
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16297
in filed before the Civil Courts. Hence the remedy for
the plaintiffs is to approach the Writ Court invoking
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
16. Admittedly, in this case, the award is questioned by
the persons who are claiming through the party to
the Lok Adalath award. When the provision itself
says that the Lok Adalath award shall be final, the
party to the said proceeding cannot maintain a suit
challenging the said award. This is the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhargavi
Constructions's case (supra), which has been
followed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Shantawwa vs. Hanamant (supra).
17. Merely because the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
on an earlier occasion, when the plaintiffs
approached to quash the award, directed the parties
to approach the Civil Court, the Civil Court does not
get jurisdiction. The jurisdiction to decide a case has
to be conferred by the statute. The Courts do not
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16297
have the power to confer jurisdiction on a particular
court, if the statute does not confer such jurisdiction.
18. This being the position, the plaintiffs could not have
approached the Civil Court to challenge the award
passed by the Lok Adalath. It addition, it is also
relevant to note that when such direction was issued
in the earlier Writ Petition the present appellants
were not heard and said order is passed even before
issuing notice to the present appellants. Hence, said
order or direction does not bind the present
appellants and they are entitled to raise a contention
that the suit is not maintainable before the Civil
Court when the award is questioned by the party to
the Lok Adalath award or a person claiming through
the party to the Lok Adalath award.
19. However, it is to be noticed that the plaintiffs had
rightly approached this Court invoking Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, raising a grievance. The
grievance of the plaintiffs, who are the petitioners in
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16297
Writ Petition No.63702/2010, was not adjudicated by
this Court. This Court declined to entertain the writ
petition. Based on the observations made in the writ
petition, the plaintiffs approached the Civil Court, but
the legal position is that the Civil Court has no
jurisdiction and the Writ Court declined to consider
the case on merit.
20. In a situation like this, the plaintiffs are left with no
remedy. However, that is not the position of law.
This being the position, this Court is of the view that
the remedy available to the plaintiffs/contesting
respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India should be provided, and the plaintiffs should be
permitted to file a Review Petition to review the
order dated 03.06.2010.
21. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the
view that the appeal is to be allowed. Hence the
following:
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16297
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed.
ii. The judgment and decree dated 24.04.2019
passed in O.S.No.145/2014 on the file of the
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, are set
aside.
iii. The suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.145/2014 is
dismissed.
iv. Liberty is reserved to the plaintiffs/respondents
No.1, 2 and 3 of this appeal to file a Review
Petition to review the order passed in Writ
Petition No.63702 of 2010.
v. It is further made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the contentions of the
parties on the merits of the case.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
gab
CT:ANB
