Madras High Court
Nirmala Devi vs M.Periyasamy on 2 August, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
C.R.P.No.768 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
C.R.P.No.768 of 2024
and
C.M.P.Nos.3808 & 3811 of 2024
Nirmala Devi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.M.Periyasamy
2.M.Myilsamy
3.Palanathal
4.The Sub Registrar,
Thottipalayam,
Neruperichal Village,
Tiruppur North Taluk. ... Respondents
[Cause title accepted vide order dated 22.11.2023
made in C.M.P.No.19119/2023 in CRP.SR.No.91192/2023]
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the final decree dated 08.04.2017 made in O.S.No.12 of
2017 on the file of the Additional Sub Court through compromise made
before Lok Adalat including its award and consequently direct the Lok
Page No.1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.768 of 2024
Adalat to remove the entry and registration.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sam Jayaraj Houston
For R1 to R3 : Mr.V.Nicholas
For R4 : Mr.T.Arunkumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner, third party in O.S.No.12 of 2017 on the file of the
Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruppur filed this civil revision petition
seeking to set aside the compromise made before the Lok Adalat including
its award dated 08.04.2017 and consequently to remove the entry and
registration made subsequent to the Lok Adalat order.
2.The petitioner filed an application seeking leave to file the present
civil revision petition and this Court vide order dated 07.02.2024 granted
leave in C.M.P.No.19108 of 2023 in CRP.SR.No.91192 of 2023.
3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner is the owner of the land measuring an extent of 10.97 acres in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.F.No.999/2A and 999/2B, Kandiayankoil Village, Tiruppur. The third
respondent Palanathal is the owner of the adjacent land situated on the
northern side of the property. The respondents 1 and 2 Periyasamy and
Myilsamy are her sons. The third respondent purchased undivided lands
measuring 3.28 acres out of 6.56 acres in S.F.No.1000 and rest of the land
belong to husband Muthusamy and his brother Amaravathi Gounder. The
said Muthusamy is the petitioner's late husband. The third respondent, her
husband and his brother purchased the property from petitioner's grandfather
Vadunganthan Gounder. A land measuring an extent of 0.87 cents in
S.F.No.999/2A is situated on the northern side of the petitioner's land and
the said property was settled in favour of the petitioner by her grandmother
Mrs.Parvathammal vide settlement deed dated 22.04.1970. The third
respondent Palanathal tried to encroach the said property by obtaining patta
fraudulently, the same was challenged by the petitioner, after enquiry and on
verification of the records, patta was cancelled. Now taking advantage of
the fraudulent decree obtained in the Lok Adalat, the first respondent created
a settlement deed dated 26.03.2022 in favour of the third respondent
Palanathal by including the petitioner's property and got document registered
as Document No.1929 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Registrar,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Thottipalayam. Taking advantage of the same, the respondents 1 to 3 are
now trying to encumber the petitioner's land by playing fraud. Earlier, the
respondents 1 to 3 filed a title suit in O.S.No.4 of 1992 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Tiruppur against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a
counter claim in the said suit and the claim of the respondents over the land
in S.F.No.999/2A was rejected and the Trial Court therein recognized that
the petitioner possess title documents and proved her possession through
continuous enjoyment by kist receipts, tax documents and the judgment and
decree dated 28.01.2002 become final as there was no appeal.
4.This being so, after lapse of 15 years the first respondent malafidely
filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.12 of 2017 on the file of the Additional
Sub Court, Tiruppur against the respondents 2 and 3 by suppressing the
earlier suit including the petitioner's property situated at S.F.No.999/2A.
This suit was listed, had only two adjudications and the same was closed as
settled. The Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruppur directly passed a final
decree by recording the compromise memo. This is by way of fraud and the
settlement arrived at in Lok Adalat by dividing the petitioner's property and
obtained a Lok Adalat award by overreaching the petitioner's right. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner already sold the lands to one M/s.Dhanas Real Estate on
16.11.2021, who filed a suit against the respondents 1 to 3 including the
petitioner and the same is pending. Due to the fraudulent act of the
respondents 1 to 3 who obtained a Lok Adalat award by committing fraud
and suppression, the petitioner filed the present petition to set aside the
decree made in O.S.No.12 of 2017 dated 08.04.2017 through compromise
made before the Lok Adalat including its award and consequently direct the
Lok Adalat to remove the entry and registration made.
5.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of J.Sivasubramanian
and another vs. N.Govindarajan and another reported in 1988 (1) CTC
470 and submitted that duty is cast on the litigant to plead, pray and get
relief by placing all materials before the Court and not by suppressing the
facts without impleading the necessary parties. He further relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and
another vs. Jalour Singh and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660, wherein
the Apex Court held that though the award of the Lok Adalat was a binding
award, the same can be challenged by filing a petition under Article 227 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Constitution of India. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in
the case of D.Harish and others vs. Champalatha and others reported in
2023-2-LW-819, wherein it is held that this Court is duty bound to correct
the wrong in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. This is the soul of its supervisory power of identifying a wrong which
holds the potential to imperil the public faith in the judiciary or challenges
its own purity and effectiveness of its functioning. Fraud on Court
empowers this Court to interfere in appropriate cases under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
6.The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the
first respondent as plaintiff filed a civil suit in O.S.No.2017 against the
respondents 2 and 3 herein as defendants for dividing the suit property into
three equal shares. Further, they have also sought for appointing a Court
Commissioner for the said purpose. During the pendency of the suit, a
compromise was arrived at before the Lok Adalat between the parties. The
respondents submitted that Muthusamy and his brother Amaravathi Gounder
owned properties in S.F.No.1000 and the third respondent also purchased
some extent in the same field. Later the properties were measured and patta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
given as per the enjoyment under the land development scheme. As per the
patta, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying
kist. There was some misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the
defendants therein. On 30.12.1991, the defendants therein tried to remove
the fence and enter into the northern side of the plaintiff's property which
was prevented and the plaintiff's right was challenged by the defendants,
hence the suit was filed to apportion the share of each other with
demarcation. In the meanwhile, compromise arrived at between them which
was recorded in the Lok Adalat and award was passed. He further submitted
that he petitioner, if aggrieved against the order can very well file a suit by
challenging the same and not by filing the above petition.
7.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 4th
respondent submitted that since a decree in O.S.No.12 of 2017 dated
08.04.2017 was obtained, the registration authorities are bound to obey the
decree. He further submitted that in the event of this Court passing any
order, the same would be carried out as per its directions.
8.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is seen that earlier the petitioner raised objection for the third respondent to
encroach the petitioner's property who obtained patta fraudulently and made
her objections for issuance of Patta to the Tahsildar. After enquiry and
verification of the documents and revenue records, Patta granted to
Palanathal was cancelled. Aggrieved against the same, the respondents 1 to
3 filed a suit in O.S.No.4 of 1992 before the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur
to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit property and to restrain
the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of
the suit properties. The petitioner raised a counter claim in the said suit with
documents and evidence. The District Munsif Court, Tiruppur after full-
fledged trial finding the counter claim of the petitioner to be proper rendered
a judgment rejecting the claim of the respondents 1 to 3 over the land in
S.F.No.999/2A and recognised the petitioner's title and continuous
enjoyment of the land. Fifteen years thereafter, it appears first respondent
filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.12 of 2017 on the file of the Additional
Subordinate Court, Tiruppur against the respondents 2 and 3 by suppressing
the earlier suit with regard to S.No.999/2A. Further, it is also seen that in
the suit in O.S.No.12 of 2017, there was only two adjudications and
immediately, it was referred to Lok Adalat wherein the respondents 1 to 3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appeared and filed a compromise deed, based on the compromise final
decree passed directly, which was obtained by fraud and suppression of fact,
due to which the petitioner is now facing a suit filed by M/s.Dhanas Real
Estate to whom the petitioner had sold the property.
9.Be that as it may, it is a clear case of suit filed by suppression which
was referred to Lok Adalat at lightning speed and in the Lok Adalat,
compromise arrived between the parties by suppression of earlier
proceedings and decree. The Apex Court held that binding award of Lok
Adalat can be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Further, this Court earlier held that decree and judgment obtained through
suppression of fact and fraud to be considered as nullity and non-est in the
eye of law. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to set aside the order
passed in O.S.No.12 of 2017 before Lok Adalat on 08.04.2017 on the file of
the Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruppur and consequently direct the 4th
respondent to remove the entry and registration made pursuant to the final
decree obtained on 08.04.2017. Further, the respondents 1 to 3 are also
restrained from alienating or encumbering the property situated at
S.F.No.999/2A measuring an extent of 0.87 cents in Kandiayankoil Village,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tiruppur.
10.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed
02.08.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cse
To
1.The Sub Registrar,
Thottipalayam,
Neruperichal Village,
Tiruppur North Taluk.
2.The Additional Subordinate Judge,
Tiruppur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
02.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
