Madras High Court
Alfred William @ Albert William vs G.Selvaraj on 28 February, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
C.R.P.No.2454 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.No.2454 of 2023
Alfred William @ Albert William
Rep. by his Power of Attorney
Miss : K.Violet Mary ... Revision Petitioner
-vs-
1. G.Selvaraj
2. G.Peter Marshall
3. G.Lawrence Nelson
4. Mary Margaret
5. F.Lourdmary
Irudayaswamy (deceased)
6. Lourdswamy
7. Joseph Antony Amalraj
8. Fanny Amala ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
praying to set aside the order passed in L.A.O.P.No.238 of 2021 by the District
Legal Services Authority at Udhagamandalam dated 09.09.2017 and to set aside the
judgment and decree passed based on the Joint Compromise Memo of Lok Adalat
Award in O.S.No.22 of 2011 on the file of the District Judge, Udhagamandalam.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sam Japa Singh
For R1 to 3 & 5 -8 : Ms.L.Arpitha
For Mr.D.Lourthu Paul Belson
For R4 : No appearance
*****
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:03:33 pm )
C.R.P.No.2454 of 2023
ORDER
This matter is listed today under the caption “For Being Mentioned” at the
instance of the Registry.
2. It is seen that pursuant to the death of the 6th respondent in the Revision
Petition, two Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos.3322 and 3323 of 2024 have been
filed, prior to the disposal of the main petition dated 20.01.2025, seeking to set
aside the abatement caused by the death of R6 and to bring on record the legal
representatives of the 6th respondent. Though those two petitions were tagged along
with the main petition, by oversight, there was no order passed in the said petitions,
as a result of which, the legal representatives of R6 have not been brought on
record.
3. Learned counsel on either side fairly conceded that those two petitions
were not considered, while disposing of the main revision petition, which may be
prejudicial to the interest of the concerned parties.
4. In view of the above, both C.M.P.Nos.3322 and 3323 of 2024 are
hereby ordered. Registry is directed to incorporate the names of the legal
representatives of the 6th respondent in the main order dated 20.01.2025, arraying
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:03:33 pm )
them as respondents and issue a fresh order copy to the parties forthwith. Except
above, in all other respects, the judgment dated 20.01.2025 remains unaltered.
28.02.2025
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:03:33 pm )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 20.01.2025
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Sathish Kumar
Alfred William @ Albert William
rep. By his Power of Attorney
Miss : K.Violet Mary .. Revision Petitioner
Vs.
1. G.Selvaraj
2. G.Peter Marshall
3. G.Lawrence Nelson
4. Mary Margaret
5. F.Lourdmary
Irudayaswamy (deceased)
6. Lourdswamy
7. Joseph Antony Amalraj
8. Fanny Amala
.. Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
praying to set aside the order passed in L.A.O.P.No.238 of 2021 by the District
Legal Services Authority at Udhagamandalam dated 09.09.2017 and to set aside the
judgment and decree passed based on the Joint Compromise Memo of Lok Adalat
Award in O.S.No.22 of 2011 on the file of the District Judge, Udhagamandalam.
For Revision Petitioner : Mr.P.Sam Japa Singh
For Respondents 1-3 & 5-8 : Ms.L.Arpitha for
Mr.D.Lourthu Paul Belson
For Respondent-4 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:03:33 pm )
ORDER
Challenge in this Revision Petition is to the order passed by the District
Legal Services Authority at Udhagamandalam in L.A.O.P.No.238 of 2021 and to set
aside the judgment and decree passed based on the Joint Compromise Memo of
Lok Adalat Award in O.S.No.22 of 2011 on the file of the District Judge,
Udhagamandalam.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit
that the suit has been originally filed by the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs for
partition of the suit property and to lot 1/6th share to the plaintiffs; that it is averred
in the plaint that the property was originally owned by one Francis Thevar, who had
four children, viz., i) Rajamanickam, ii) Chellamary, iii) Amalorpavamary and iv)
F.Lourdmary; that the entire property has been bequeathed by the said Francis
Thevar in favour of his son Rajamanickam vide a sale deed, registered as Document
No.12 of 1954 dated 24.09.1954; that the said Rajamanickam having had no lineal
descendants, he purported to have adopted the second defendant as his son; that
though the plaint proceeded, as if, adoption is not recognized under the law, the
written statement filed by the defendants treating the second defendant as son of the
said Rajamanickam is not disputed; that while things stood thus, the matter has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:03:33 pm )
referred to the Lok Adalat by the plaintiffs and few defendants and the parties have
entered into a compromise and based on the said memo of compromise, award has
been passed, the defendants 2, 3 and 4 have not even signed either in the
compromise memo or the Award. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel
that when the revision petitioner was not even aware of the lok adalath
proceedings, as he has not even participated in the such and did not sign the Memo
of Compromise or the award and the joint Memo of Compromise is signed only by
four defendants out of seven defendant, award has been passed in the absence of
defendants 2, 3 and 4 is not valid in the eye of law and hence, prayed to set aside the
award.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that the
defendants 2, 3 and 4 in the suit have not signed the award.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and
respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 and perused the materials placed on record.
5. Though the suit has been originally filed for partition of 1/6 th share
over the suit property, the revision petitioner claims right over the suit property on
the basis of the adoption, whether such adoption is recognized in their respective
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:03:33 pm )
personal law or not has to be seen in a different context taking into account the
admission of the parties in the suit. Admittedly, the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs
have impleaded the second defendant in the suit proceedings. Thus, when the
revision petitioner is made as party defendant in the suit, any order/award/decree is
obtained, without his presence or notice, in view of this Court, cannot be binding
on the revision petitioner. De hors the same, award has been passed without the
signature of all the parties to the suit, as, there are other two defendants, viz.,
defendants 3 and 4, who were excluded apart from the revision petitioner.
6. Therefore, the award obtained behind the back of the the defendants
2, 3 and 4 cannot have any sanctity of law. It is relevant to mention here that the
award passed by the Lok Adalath has to acquire a character of the Civil Court
decree, for which purpose, there must be proper opportunity to all the parties to the
suit and only in the presence of all the parties and with their individual consent,
award ought to have been passed. When some of the parties alone have entered
into a compromise, excluding the necessary parties, (who would claim
right/title/interest over the property) and based on such compromise, if an award is
passed, such award cannot be treated as valid in the eye of law. Hence, this Court
is inclined to set aside the award passed by the Lok Adalath.
7. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed, the award passed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:03:33 pm )
the Lok Adalath in L.A.O.P.No.238 of 2021 is set aside. Consequently, the suit in
O.S.No.22 of 2011 is restored to its own file, and the shall shall be decided on
merits. No costs.
20.01.2025
sd
Index : Yes/no
To
1. The District Legal Services Authority,
Udhagamandalam.
2. The District Judge, Udhagamandalam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:03:33 pm )
N.Sathish Kumar,J.,
sd
20.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 01:03:33 pm )
