Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 158 (AP)

Tummala Lakshmana Rao v. Palle Sreenivasulu

2019-07-29

T.RAJANI

body2019
ORDER : 1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 23.10.2017, rejecting E.P. S.R. No. 9890 of 2017 filed by the petitioner-Decree Holder in O.S. No. 78 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. The impugned order of the lower Court shows that the award, which is sought to be executed, is passed by the Lok Adalat and it needs registration as per clause (vi) in sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Registration Act. It also observed that the description of the immovable property of the second defendant is not furnished in the award of terms of compromise and hence, it is difficult to enforce the said omnibus clause. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court. Rule 18(1) of the A.P. State Legal Services Authorities Rules, 1995, specifies that the award passed by the Lok Adalat shall be executed by the court in which those matters were pending prior to the passing the award by the Lok Adalat. The judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Board of Trustees of the Port of Visakhapatnam vs. Presiding Officer, 2000 (5) ALT 577 equated the award of Lok Adalat with a decree on compromise. The counsel for the petitioner, with regard to application of Section 17(1)(f) of the Registration Act to this case, argues that while the Legal Services Authorities Act came into force on 11.10.1989, the amendment i.e., brought to Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act by the Government of Andhra Pradesh is on 01.4.1999. Section 17(2)(vi), which stands prior to the amendment is the one, which is applicable to this case, as this award is passed after the said amendment. Section 17(2)(vi), after the amendment, is as follows: "17. Section 17(2)(vi), which stands prior to the amendment is the one, which is applicable to this case, as this award is passed after the said amendment. Section 17(2)(vi), after the amendment, is as follows: "17. Documents of which registration is compulsory:- (2) Nothing in Clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to: (vi) any decree or order of a Court, not being a decree or order or award falling under clause (f) of sub-section (1), except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding." 5. Section 17(1) of the Registration Act is to the effect that documents specified in Clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1) are compulsorily registrable. By virtue of A.P. State amendment, Clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act is inserted, which reads as follows: "17. Documents of which registration is compulsory:- (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864 or the Indian Registration Act, 1866 (20 of 1866), or the Indian Registration Act, 1871 (8 of 1871), or the Indian Registration Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or this Act came or comes into force, namely: (f) any decree or order or award or a copy thereof passed by a Civil Court, on consent of the defendants or on circumstantial evidence but not on the basis of any instruments which is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, such as registered title deed produced by the plaintiff, where such decree or order or award purports or operate to create, declare, assign, limit, extinguish whether in present or in future any right, title or interest whether vested or contingent of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property." 6. In view of the above provisions, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner stands on sound reasoning and hence, it cannot be said that Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act is not applicable to the present case. 7. As regards the finding that the E.P. is premature, the court observed that Rs. In view of the above provisions, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner stands on sound reasoning and hence, it cannot be said that Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act is not applicable to the present case. 7. As regards the finding that the E.P. is premature, the court observed that Rs. 70,000/- is ordered to be paid every month if the retirement date is beyond June 2021. It has to be said that the said finding is based on a complete perverse understanding of the terms of the award. The award is to the effect that the defendants 1 and 2 therein shall credit Rs. 70,000/- every month by 10th, starting from January, 2017 until the debt is discharged or until the end of June, 2021, whichever is later. Retirement is the end point but the starting point is January 10th 2017. Any default from January 10th 2017 gives liberty to the plaintiff to take possession of the property attached in I.A. No. 2474 of 2014 in the suit. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the terms of the award. As to why the court led itself into such a misconception and misunderstanding is not known. 8. The lower Court's observation that the description of immovable property of the second defendant is not furnished, is not found to be correct, as, though the description of the immovable property is not given, the award permits the execution in respect of the property already attached in I.A. No. 2474 of 2014 in the suit. Hence, the description of the attached property can be secured from the schedule of I.A. No. 2474 of 2014 and there cannot be any difficulty in executing the award in respect of the said property. 9. The points urged with regard to nature of decree and the rulings relied upon in that regard are not taken up for discussion, as the impugned order does not touch upon those aspects. Hence, in view of the above, this Court opines that the rejection of the E.P. is not sustainable. 10. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 23.10.2017, rejecting E.P. S.R. No. 9890 of 2017 filed by the petitioner-Decree Holder in O.S. No. 78 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa. Consequently, the lower Court is directed to number the E.P. and proceed in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 23.10.2017, rejecting E.P. S.R. No. 9890 of 2017 filed by the petitioner-Decree Holder in O.S. No. 78 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa. Consequently, the lower Court is directed to number the E.P. and proceed in accordance with law. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.