Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1564 (AP)

Behara Kiran Kumar v. Venkumahanthi Asha Jyothi

2024-11-25

NYAPATHY VIJAY

body2024
ORDER : NYAPATHY VIJAY, J. 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 07.12.2021 in I.A.No.76 of 2019 in O.S.No.6 of 2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Tekkali, Srikakulam District, dismissing the application filed for rejection of plaint. 2. Brief facts: The Petitioners are the Defendants. The suit O.S.No.6 of 2019 was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff for partition of the schedule properties into three equal shares and allot one such share to the Plaintiff/Respondent. The Petitioners/Defendants filed their Written Statement disputing the claim of the Plaintiff/Respondent. 3. Thereafter, the Petitioners/Defendants filed I.A.No.76 of 2019 seeking to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC . In the said application, it was pointed out that P.L.C.No.29 of 2017 was filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent before the Lok Adalat Bench, Mandal Legal Services Authority Committee at Tenali against the Petitioners/Defendants for partition of the very same schedule properties and allotment of 1/3rd share to the Plaintiff/Respondent. 4. It was pleaded that after due negotiations, the dispute between the parties was compromised and a Lok Adalat Award was passed on 09.09.2017 agreeing to give ‘A’ schedule properties covered under Lok Adalat Award dated 09.09.2017 i.e. 2 tulas of gold and Ac.0.20 cents of land in Survey No.14-3, Patta No.213 situated at Chinthagara Village, Bhagavanpuram Gram Panchayat, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District to the Respondent/Plaintiff by way of a registered Gift Deed dated 08.09.2017 vide document bearing No.1848 of 2017. 5. The ‘B’ schedule properties under the Award were allotted to the Defendants/Petitioners. Thereafter, the Plaintiff/Respondent filed W.P.No.6708 of 2018 before this Court questioning the Lok Adalat Award dated 09.09.2017 passed in P.L.C.No.29 of 2017. This Court had dismissed W.P.No.6708 of 2018 on 26.07.2018. Subsequently, the present suit was filed seeking for the very same relief of partition of the plaint schedule properties, in October, 2018. 6. It is the case of the Petitioners/Defendants that once the Lok Adalat Award was passed and the same stood confirmed by this Court, no cause of action is available to the Respondent/Plaintiff for filing the present suit. The Plaintiff/Respondent filed her Counter. In the Counter there was no dispute about passing of the Lok Adalat Award and dismissal of the Writ Petition filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent. 7. The Plaintiff/Respondent filed her Counter. In the Counter there was no dispute about passing of the Lok Adalat Award and dismissal of the Writ Petition filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent. 7. The trial Court after hearing the respective contentions rejected the application on the ground that the Lok Adalat Award at best amounts to res judicata and the application for rejection of plaint cannot be entertained on the ground of res judicata. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 8. Heard Sri V.S.R.Anjeneyelu, learned senior counsel for M/s Vangala Sailaja, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Raj Kumar, learned senior counsel for Sri Sapthagiri Metta, learned counsel for the Respondent. 9. Contentions: The senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners/Defendants contended that once the Lok Adalat Award is passed, the same cannot be questioned in the suit as held in Bharvagi Construction and Another vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and  Others, 2018 (13) SCC 480 . It is also his contention that the Plaintiff/Respondent by her conduct is accepting part of the Lok Adalat Award by retaining the benefit under the Award and yet seeking for partition of the balance extents of properties. The senior counsel emphasized on Clause (5) of the Award, which says that the parties shall not raise any dispute with regard to the properties. 10. The counsel appearing for the Respondent/Plaintiff contended that it is apparent that the partition effected under the Lok Adalat Award is uneven and meagre property was allotted to the Plaintiff/Respondent and therefore the Plaintiff/Respondent had filed the suit seeking for her rightful share as provided under the Hindu Succession Act. 11. Reasoning: The Lok Adalat Award pertains to the following immovable properties i.e. A schedule : An extent Ac.0.20 cents out of Ac.0.36 cents of land situated at Bhagavanpuram Grama Panchayat, Chintalagara Village, Tekkali Mandal under Patta No.213 in Sy.No.14-3. B schedule: Sl.No. Survey No. Extent of land 1. 3-17 Ac.0.40 ½ cents 2. 3-9 Ac.0.89 cents 3. 11-19 Ac.0.29 cents 4. 13-17 Ac.0.10 cents 5. 14-2 Ac.0.16 cents 12. The above mentioned ‘A’ schedule properties were alloted to the Plaintiff/Respondent in view of the compromise between the parties in the Lok Adalat Award. The ‘B’ schedule properties were allotted to the Petitioners/Defendants. 3-17 Ac.0.40 ½ cents 2. 3-9 Ac.0.89 cents 3. 11-19 Ac.0.29 cents 4. 13-17 Ac.0.10 cents 5. 14-2 Ac.0.16 cents 12. The above mentioned ‘A’ schedule properties were alloted to the Plaintiff/Respondent in view of the compromise between the parties in the Lok Adalat Award. The ‘B’ schedule properties were allotted to the Petitioners/Defendants. Consequent thereto, a registered Gift Deed dated 08.09.2017 vide document bearing No.1848 of 2017 was executed in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent by the Defendants/Petitioners with regard to ‘A’ schedule property. 13. The Plaintiff/Respondent after execution of the registered Gift Deed filed W.P.No.6708 of 2018 before this Court questioning the Lok Adalat Award on the premise that allotment of share i.e. ‘A’ schedule was meagre in comparison to the property retained by the Petitioners/Defendants and therefore sought to set-aside the Award. 14. It was pleaded that the Plaintiff/Respondent that the village elders and the Defendants/Petitioners had deceived the Plaintiff/Respondent by taking her signatures on white papers. The Hon’ble Division Bench after noting her submissions held that the Plaintiff/Respondent approached the P.L.C on her own accord and as the Plaintiff/Respondent signed the Award before the Mandal Legal Services Authority Committee and in that view dismissed the Writ Petition on 26.07.2018. The relevant portion of the order of this Court is extracted hereunder:- “On the petitioner’s own averments, it is at her instance that respondent No.1 has passed the award. Though the petitioner alleged that she was deceived by the village elders and respondent Nos.2 and 3 by obtaining her signatures on white papers, she failed to substantiate the same by producing any material. The award was passed on 09.09.2017 and more than four months thereafter, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. During the interregnum, she has failed to cause any notice issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the alleged deception. A perusal of the award shows that the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.2 and 3 were present before respondent No.1 and that they have also signed the award. Even if the petitioner’s plea that she was made to sign on white papers, which were, allegedly, used as settlement is accepted, she did not explain as to why she signed on the Lok Adalat Award. It is not her pleaded case that she was not aware of the contents of the Lok Adalat Award before she has signed. Even if the petitioner’s plea that she was made to sign on white papers, which were, allegedly, used as settlement is accepted, she did not explain as to why she signed on the Lok Adalat Award. It is not her pleaded case that she was not aware of the contents of the Lok Adalat Award before she has signed. In the light of the above facts, we are of the opinion that filing of this Writ Petition is a pure after thought of the petitioner and her conduct in filing the same smacks of mala fides. The writ Petition is accordingly dismissed” 15. The dismissal of the Writ Petition was not challenged further and the Award had attained finality. Immediately thereafter, the present suit was filed for partition vis-a-vis ‘B’ schedule properties only. In the present suit, the Plaintiff/Respondent did not refer to the P.L.C Award or the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6708 of 2018 dated 26.07.2018 and suppressing these facts the present suit was filed. 16. Though the Plaintiff/Respondent did not directly challenge the Lok Adalat Award in the suit, but the suit is nothing but a challenge to the Award in disguise. The only way the Lok Adalat Award could be challenged is by way of a Writ Petition as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs  Jalour Singh , 2008 (2) SCC 660 and the same was held to be “law” for the purpose of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharvagi Construction and Another vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Others . The Paragraphs 23, 24, 25 and 26 thereof are relevant extracted below for ready reference:- “23. This is what their Lordships held in para 12: (Jalour Singh case 2, SCC p. 666, para 12) “12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits.” 24. In our considered view, the aforesaid law laid down by this Court is binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds. In the light of clear pronouncement of the law by this Court, we are of the opinion that the only remedy available to the aggrieved person (respondents herein/plaintiffs) was to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award dated 22- 8-2007 passed by the Lok Adalat. It was then for the writ court to decide as to whether any ground was made out by the writ petitioners for quashing the award and, if so, whether those grounds are sufficient for its quashing. 25. The High Court was, therefore, not right in by-passing the law laid down by this Court on the ground that the suit can be filed to challenge the award, if the challenge is founded on the allegations of fraud. In our opinion, it was not correct approach of the High Court to deal with the issue in question to which we do not concur. 26. In our opinion, it was not correct approach of the High Court to deal with the issue in question to which we do not concur. 26. We also do not agree with the submissions of Mr Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents when he urged that firstly, the expression “law” occurring in clause (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 does not include the “judicial decisions” and clause (d) applies only to bar which is contained in “the Act” enacted by the legislature; and secondly, even if it is held to include the “judicial decisions”, yet the law laid down in State of Punjab2 cannot be read to hold that the suit is barred. Both these submissions, in our view, have no merit.” 17. In the light of the fact that the Lok Adalat Award in P.L.C. No.29 of 2017 dated 09.09.2017 passed by Mandal Legal Services Committee, Tekkali had attained finality in W.P.No.6708 of 2018 dated 26.07.2018, the Plaintiff/Respondent cannot maintain the suit as no cause of action can be said to be available to maintain the present suit. Secondly, the suit being nothing but a challenge to the Award in disguise, the same cannot be maintained as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected both under lack of cause of action and Sections 11(a) & 11(d) of CPC . 18. Accordingly, the impugned order in 07.12.2021 in I.A.No.76 of 2019 is set-aside and the C.R.P is allowed. Consequently, the plaint in O.S.No.6 of 2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tekkali, Srikakulam is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.