Madras High Court

Janaki Ammal vs Amudha on 11 December, 2023

Author: T.V.Thamilselvi

Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi

C.R.P.No.4773 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.12.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

C.R.P.No.4773 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.22316 of 2023

1. Janaki Ammal

2. S.R.Chandran
rep. by his power agent
Mrs.Vasavi Radhakrishnan

3. Kalavathi Ramachandran

4. Vasavi Radhakrishnan

5. Uma Sankar
rep. by her power agent
Kalavathi Ramachandran

6. Banu Ramasamy ... Petitioners

-Vs-

1. Amudha
2. Muthulakshmi
3. Suganthi
4. Sheela
5. Vanitha
6. Pazhani
7. Senthil Sundaram ... Respondents

1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4773 of 2023

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Award dated 18.11.2021
passed in O.S.No. 271 of 2021 passed by the Lok Adhalat and
consequently declare the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2021 in
O.S.No.271 of 2021 on the file of Principal District Court, Cuddalore and
its subsequent registration before the SRO, Pudupettai as document
No.961 of 2021 as null and void.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Moorthy

For Respondents : Mr.R.Sunil Kumar for R1

Mr. S.R.Varun Karthik
for R2 to R7

ORDER

Challenging the impugned award passed in O.S.No.271 of 2021

passed by the Lok Adhalat and consequently declare the judgment and

decree dated 01.12.2021 in O.S.No.271 of 2021 on the file of Principal

District Court, Cuddalore and its subsequent registration before the SRO,

Pudupettai as document No.961 of 2021 as null and void.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The Revision Petitioners are third parties to the suit in

O.S.No.271 of 2021. The said suit was filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff

against the respondents 2 to 7, who are defendants in that suit seeking for

the relief of specific performance and on the first hearing itself, all the

defendants have consented for a settlement decree and the same was

recorded by Lok Adalat on 18.11.2021. As per the Lok Adalat award, the

suit property was granted in favour of plaintiff and thereafter, she perfected

title. But, in fact, the Revision Petitioners are the original owners of suit

property, more particularly, the suit properties are belong to one

Duraisamy Kanabadigal and his son Sri Kumar Iyyar, who purchased the

properties through various sale deeds. Subsequently, both Duraisamy

Kanabadigal and Sri Kumar Iyyar died leaving behind plaintiff and one

Ravi as legal heirs. The Revision Petitioners are the legal heir of deceased

Ravi and they are original owners, but behind their back, the plaintiff

obtained a fraudulent decree by invoking Lok Adalat proceedings in the

suit in O.S.No.271 of 2021. Aggrieved over the same, the Revision

Petitioners/third parties preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

3. On perusal of records, it reveals that the 1st respondent/plaintiff

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

filed a suit in O.S.No. 271 of 2021 before the Principal District Court,

Cuddalore praying for the relief of specific performance against defendants

1 to 6, who are the respondents 2 to 7 herein. In that suit, Survey No. 1

measuring an extent of 7.20 cents is shown as schedule of property and

she prayed for specific performance as per the contract dated 01.09.2019.

Based on that, she sought a direction directing the defendants to execute

the sale deed. Notice served on the defendants and they have entered their

appearance. They have consented the decree and accordingly, the matter

was referred to Lok Adalat and a settlement memo was recorded in the Lok

Adalat. As per the terms of compromise, the award was passed by the Lok

Adalat. On perusal of award passed by Lok Adalat. it seems that all the

defendants in the suit received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as advance amount

in respect of suit property on 01.09.2019 and thereafter, they have received

a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 12.04.2021 from the plaintiff and they have

agreed to execute a sale deed on receipt of remaining sale consideration,

thereby the award was registered before the authority concerned.

Aggrieved over that award, now the Revision Petitioners, who are original

owners preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4. Notice served on the respondents and the learned counsel for all

the respondents have appeared.

5. The learned counsel for Revision Petitioners would submit that as

per the sale agreement, the 1st respondent/plaintiff preferred a suit in

O.S.No. 271 of 2021 and the defendants have consented for a settlement

as per the terms of settlement and submitted that they have not committed

any fraud as alleged by the Revision Petitioners. But, as per the plaint

averments in O.S.No. 271 of 2021, as rightly pointed by the learned

counsel for Revision Petitioners that there is no title deed was produced on

the side of 1st respondent/plaintiff to show the title of

defendants/respondents 2 to 7. Only they have relied two documents viz.,

Sale agreement and another one is legal notice. But on seeing the patta and

other revenue records relied on by the 1st respondent/plaintiff enclosed in

typed set of papers, for Survey No.1, Patta No.1 was issued in favour of

one Duraisamy Kanabadigal, paternal grandfather of Revision Petitioners

and the extent of property was also stated. So, as per 'A' register extract,

Survey No.1 stands in the name of Revision Petitioners family. Hence, the

Revision Petitioners are having better title than the defendants. But, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

defendants have not produced any documents before the trial court nor

before the Lok adalat to show that they are having right and title over the

suit property. Without any proof for the title, the Lok Adalat passed an

award and a compromise memo was recorded in the Lok Adalat, as such is

totally erroneous one and the same is liable to be set aside. Furthermore,

the Presiding Officer, who recorded the Lok Adalat award also shows their

non-application of mind. They have also not perused any title deed of the

parties concerned and mechanically they have recorded the settlement as

such is totally erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.

6. The learned counsel for respondents would submit that the

Revision Petitioners are not entitled to proceed with two parallel

proceedings, since because they have already filed a suit in O.S.No.154 of

2022, but in that suit, the Revision Petitioners seeking the relief of

declaration.

7. Though the plaint prayer is relating to the suit in O.S.No.271 of

2021, as on date, the decree was passed based upon Lok Adalat award and

the same can be set aside by invoking Art.226 of Constitution of India.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Furthermore, on perusal of records, prima facie, it reveals that without any

proof for title, the award is recorded as such is erroneous one. Therefore,

the objections raised by the respondents is not sustainable, since because

they have not approached the court with clean hands. As rightly pointed

out by the learned counsel for Revision Petitioners as well as respondents

by relying the ratio laid down in the authority reported in 2018 (13) SCC

480 : 2018 (4) SCC (Civ) 243 : 2017 SCC Online SC 1053 in the case of

Bhargavi Constructions and another vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy

and others, wherein the Apex Court held as follows :-

“A. Legal Aid and ADR – Lok Adalats – Award passed by Lok

Adalat – challenge to – Remedy available to aggrieved party

in such a cse – Held, by virtue of law laid down by Supreme

Court in Jalour Singh (2008) 2 SCC 660, challenge to award

of Lok Adalat can be made only by filing a Writ Petition

under Art. 226 and/or Art. 227 of Constitution of India and

that too on very limited grounds – Civil Suit not

maintainable thereof.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Thus, challenging the Lok Adalat award can be made only by filing a Writ

Petition under Art. 226 of Constitution of India. Hence, the aforesaid ratio

is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the award

passed by the Lok Adalat in O.S.No.271 of 2021 is set aside and this Civil

Revision Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the suit in O.S.No.271 of 2021 is

restored and try along with the suit in O.S.No. 154 of 2022. No costs.

Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

8. Furthermore, Registry is directed to call for remarks from the

learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore as well as Presiding

Officer, Lok Adalat, Cuddalore how they recorded the compromise

decree without verification of title deeds and submit the report before

this court.