Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Section 19(5) – Scope of Lok Adalat Award – Comprehensive Settlement:
A Lok Adalat, while settling disputes raised in a pending suit, has the jurisdiction to include disputes or properties not originally part of the subject matter of the suit for the purpose of achieving a comprehensive and final settlement between the parties. The provisions of Section 19(5) of the Act should be read expansively to further the legislative intent of promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution and ensuring complete resolution of disputes, particularly in family matters involving multiple litigations.
Lok Adalat Award – Inclusions Beyond Suit Scope – Validity:
An award passed by a Lok Adalat is valid even if it incorporates properties or matters that were not the subject of the original suits, provided such inclusions are part of a broader, comprehensive settlement between the parties.
Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17(2)(vi) – Lok Adalat Award and Registration:
A Lok Adalat award, which is treated as a decree under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and deals with immovable properties not originally included in the suit schedule, would require compulsory registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908. However, the non-registration of such an award does not render the award itself void or invalid; it primarily affects its enforceability or implementability.
Challenge to Lok Adalat Award – Grounds of Fraud/Misrepresentation:
An award of the Lok Adalat can be challenged on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion. However, the burden is on the petitioner to provide concrete material to support such allegations, and a mere assertion of fraud without corroborating evidence or a satisfactory explanation for delay in challenging the award may not be sufficient for the Court to set aside the award. The presence of the petitioner's advocate's signature on the compromise terms generally indicates awareness of the terms.
Chinthapalli Adilakshmi Audemma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 July, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
&
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION Nos.31774, 32131 & 32347 of 2023
Between:
Chinthapalli Adilakshmi @ Audemma,
W/o.Late Subbarao, aged 77 years,
R/o.4-1-244, 11th Line,
Rajapanagai Road, Near Ramalayam Temple,
Ongole,
Prakasam District - 523001
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary of Law and Justice,
Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Guntur District and 6 others. ...Respondents
Sri G. Rama Chandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
District Legal Services Authority.
Smt. N. Revathi, learned counsel for private respondents 3 and 7 in
W.P.No.34774.
Sri K. Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and
respondent No.7 in W.P.No.32131 of 2023.
COMMON ORDER
Dt:24.07.2024 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) 2 RRR,J & HN,J W.P.31774 of 2023 & batch Heard Sri G. Rama Chandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the District Legal Services Authority. Smt. N. Revathi, learned counsel for private respondents 3 and 7 in W.P.No.34774. Sri K. Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and respondent No.7 in W.P.No.32131 of 2023.
2. As the writ petitions arise out of the same set of facts and have been filed challenging a common Lok-Adalat Award, settling three separate suits, these writ petitions are being disposed of together.
3. These writ petitions arise between members of one family. The petitioner in these three writ petitions is the mother, respondent No.3 is one daughter, respondent No.7 is the son of respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 is the 2nd daughter of the petitioner. Respondent No.7 in W.P.No.32131 of 2023 is the daughter of respondent No.4 in W.P.No.31774 of 2023.
4. On account of disputes over right and claim over three items of property, O.S.No.100/11, O.S.No.204 of 2005, O.S.No.206 of 2005 and O.S.No.46 of 2007 were filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. O.S.No.279 of 2008 was before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole and is not covered by the award of the Lok Adalat. 3
RRR,J & HN,J W.P.31774 of 2023 & batch
5. It appears that O.S.No.46 of 2007 was filed by some tenants in the property and the same may not be relevant for the purposes of this writ petition.
6. As far as the remaining three cases are concerned all the parties to the said suits, had arrived at a settlement which were reduced to writing as terms of settlement and placed before the Lok- Adalat held in relation to the Senior Civil Judge Courts in Ongole. An award was passed in terms of the settlement placed before the Lok- Adalat, by way of an award dated 08.02.2020.
7. The said award, which is passed in the lines of the terms of settlement, provided that items 1 to 3, in the terms of settlement, which were the subject matter of the above suits, were to be allotted to the private respondents in the manner set out in the award. Apart from this, items 4 to 13, which were essentially agricultural lands, were made a part of the terms of settlement and the award even though they were not the subject matter of the suits.
8. After the passing of the award, the petitioner herein had filed the above three writ petitions challenging the award dated 08.02.2020. The petitioner chose to file three writ petitions on the ground that the settlement and award was passed in each of the three suits separately. Be that as it may, the petitioner challenged the Lok- 4
RRR,J & HN,J W.P.31774 of 2023 & batch Adalat award on three grounds. Firstly, the said award was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, secondly, the award could not have been passed without a prior settlement in relation to items 3 to 14 which had been reduced to writing and registered and thirdly, the award could not have been passed in relation to items 4 to 13 as they were not part of the dispute before the Court in the three suits and consequently could not have been brought into the settlement or the award.
9. Sri G. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner, who is the mother of respondents 3 and 4 trusted her daughters implicitly and had blindly signed on the document on the assurance of both the daughters that the settlement was essentially related to items 1 to 3 house properties and not in relation to the agricultural properties in which she had an interest. As her signatures were obtained in this manner, it would amount to fraud and misrepresentation requiring this Court to set aside the said award.
10. Sri G. Ramachandra Rao would contend that the settlement relating to items 4 to 13 is a settlement of matters which are outside the disputes raised in the suit and as such, Section 17(ii))(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 mandates the registration of such a document failing which the document would have to be treated as non- 5
RRR,J & HN,J W.P.31774 of 2023 & batch est and void. He would further submit that even otherwise, the correct procedure to be followed was that the settlement between the parties in relation to items 4 to 13 should have been first reduced to writing and registered and thereupon the said registered document should have been placed before the Lok-Adalat. This was not done, and there is no valid award in relation to items 4 to 13.
11. Sri G. Rama Chandra Rao would submit that Section 19(5) of the Legal Services Authority Act stipulates that the matters which can be placed before the Lok-Adalat are settlement of disputes regarding properties which are mentioned in a pending suit or settlement of disputes which have not yet been raised by way of a suit and can be settled by way of registering a pre-litigation case. He would submit that the two limbs of Section19(5) of the Legal Services Authority Act are disjunctive and there cannot be a common settlement of disputes which have not been raised in an existing suit along with settlement of disputes which have been raised in the suit.
12. Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for Legal Services Authority-2nd respondent would submit that the writ petitions do not make out the necessary grounds for interference. He would submit that though one of the remedies for setting aside a Lok-Adalat award is to approach this Court, by way of a 6 RRR,J & HN,J W.P.31774 of 2023 & batch writ petition, the said writ petition would have to contain details of the fraud or misrepresentation along with necessary material which puts the issue beyond the pale of any controversy and in such a manner that a Court would not have to go further in analyzing the various issues to arrive at a finding a fraud or misrepresentation. Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy would contend that the two limbs of Section 19(5) should not be read distinctively, but should be read in conjunction with each other. He would submit that, the Lok-Adalat has the jurisdiction to not only settle disputes which are raised in a suit but also disputes in relation to properties which are not included in the suit, as the purposes of the Lok-Adalat scheme is to ensure settlement of disputes between parties and the provisions of Section 19(5) would have to be read liberally. He would also rely upon a Judgment of this Court in Chaluvadi Murali Krishna and another vs. District Legal Service Authority, Prakasam District, Ongole rep. 1st Additional District Judge cum Presiding Judge, Lok Adalat and others1 and judgment of a combined High Court in V. Kameswara Rao vs. District Legal Services Authority-cum-VII additional District and Sessions Judge Court (Lok Adalat), at Vijayawada rep.by its Secretary and others2.
1 2013(2) ALT 10 : 2013(123) AIC 558 2 2015 (4) ALT 745 (D.B) 7 RRR,J & HN,J W.P.31774 of 2023 & batch
13. Smt. N. Revathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and 7 would submit that the contention of the petitioner that she was unaware of the contents of the terms of settlement and that she had affixed her thumb impression without understanding the contents of the terms of settlement is incorrect. She would submit that the said terms of the settlement were attested by the petitioner by putting her thumb impression and that the advocate of the petitioner had also signed the said award. She submits that this is sufficient to show that the award was accepted by the petitioner and that she had understood all the terms of the compromise before she put her thumb impression on the terms of settlement. She would further submit that except making a statement, that the petitioner had been mislead, there is no material placed before this Court, by the petitioner, to support the said allegation of fraud and misrepresentation. She would also submit that the petitioner having accepted the award in February, 2020 has chosen to keep quiet and moved the present set of writ petitions only now and the said delay is sufficient to show that there was no fraud or misrepresentation.
14. On the question of the scope of Section 19(5) of the Legal Services Authority Act, she reiterates the contentions of Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy.
8
RRR,J & HN,J W.P.31774 of 2023 & batch
15. Sri G. Rama Chandra Rao would contend that the petitioner was unaware of the terms of the compromise as she had continued to enjoy the properties in items 4 to 13 and it was only when respondent No.3 sought to get the revenue entries challenged that the petitioner had become aware of the fraud played on her and has approached this Court. He would state that the delay of three years in filing the writ petitions was on account of the fact that the petitioner had not been aware of the terms of compromise and had come to know of it only when the applications were moved for mutation. Consideration of the Court:
16. The validity of the awards of the Lok-Adalat are being challenged on the following grounds:
1) The award has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and requires to be set-aside;
2) The award could not have been passed as the creation of rights in items 4 to 13 of the award required the same to be reduced to writing and registered before being placed before the Lok-Adalat. As the same was not done, the award is bad;
3) Provisions of Section 19(5) of the Act require that there can be an award of Lok-Adalat if it relates to disputes in a 9 RRR,J & HN,J W.P.31774 of 2023 & batch suit pending before the Court to which the Lok-Adalat bench would be applicable or in relation to disputes which are not before any Court and can be brought directly before the Lok-Adalat. This would mean that settlement of disputes raised in a suit cannot be done by a Lok-Adalat when properties which were not part of the subject matter of the suit are sought to be included in the settlement.
4) Whether the award of a Lok-Adalat, which requires registration would become invalid and would have to be set- aside if the same is not registered as per Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908.
17. The case of the petitioner is that none of the parties to the suits had any claim over items 4 to 13 set out in the award and that only she had right and claim over these properties. In such circumstances, the question of bringing these properties into a settlement in relation to items 1 to 3 does not arise. Her daughters had assured her that a compromise being accepted by her was only in relation to items 1 to 3 and had obtained her thumb impression by making her think that she would have a share in items 1 to 3 set out in the Lok-Adalat award. She also contended that she came to know that she was only entitled to rent in relation to the properties in items 1 to 3 and that she did not get any share in the said properties only upon 10 RRR,J & HN,J W.P.31774 of 2023 & batch approaching her counsel who explained the terms of compromise to her.
18. The petitioner relied upon the following judgments to contend that any award of the Lok-Adalat, which is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or coercion can be set aside by filing a writ petition before this Court.
1. Bhargavi Constructions & Anr. Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Ors.3
2. Sri Durga Malleswara Educational Society, Vijayawada, Krishna District vs. The District legal Services Authority and Ors.4
19. There is no dispute as to the principles of law set out in the aforesaid judgments and this Court is bound by the ratio set out in these judgments. However, it would have to be seen whether the petitioner has made out a case for fraud and misrepresentation. The entire affidavit filed in support of the writ petition essentially sets out the rights and claims of various parties to the suits on the properties which are set out in the Lok-Adalat award. Apart from this, there are allegations by the petitioner that the respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition had convinced her that they were giving her a share in items 1 to 3 of the Lok-Adalat award and had not told her that her rights over 3 (2018) 13 SCC 480 4 2012 4 ALD page 27 11 RRR,J & HN,J W.P.31774 of 2023 & batch items 4 to 13 of the Lok-Adalat award would be affected by the compromise. She states that believing her daughters she had affixed her thumb impression and the same was obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation by them.
20. The petitioner except making such statements has not placed any material before this Court to arrive at a conclusion that she had affixed her thumb impression on the award because of the misrepresentation of respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition. The award was passed on 08.02.2000. The present writ petition came to be filed on 05.12.2023 after a lapse of about three years. This delay in approaching the Court is sought to be explained by the petitioner stating that the fraud came to light when she came to know that the 3rd respondent had, recently, given a representation to the 6th respondent- Tahsildar for issuance of pattadar pass books in relation to Ac.5.90 cents of land which belong to the petitioner on the basis of compromise decree. She states she realized about the fraud when she had approached her counsel on 10.10.2023, and he explained to her about the fraud carried out on her and had issued a legal notice to respondents 5 and 6 about the absolute rights of the petitioner over the land. The petitioner has not stated the source of her information about the attempt of the 3rd respondent seeking to obtain pattadar passbooks in relation to Ac.5.90 cents of land. The legal notice said to have been 12 RRR,J & HN,J W.P.31774 of 2023 & batch sent by the counsel for the petitioner on 10.10.2023 does not set out any details of any specific application made by the 3rd respondent. The counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent merely denies the said averment without any specific statement as to whether any such conclusion was moved by her or not. However, the 3rd respondent would contend that her sister, who is the 4th respondent, had applied for mutation of her name in the revenue records for item No.1 of the Lok-Adalat as per the terms of the aforesaid award and as such, the contention of the petitioner that she was unaware of the terms of the compromise or that she was under the impression that she gets a share in item No.1 of the Lok-Adalat award is belied by the fact that the petitioner kept quiet when the 4th respondent sought mutation in her favour in relation to item No.1. The 3rd respondent contends that this would show that the petitioner is raising selective issues and not any genuine contention that there was fraud and misrepresentation due to which, she had put her thumb impression on the award. The 3rd respondent would also contend that apart from the petitioner, her advocate had also signed the said award which clearly shows that the petitioner was fully aware of the terms of the award and the present contention is being raised only for the purposes of getting the award set-aside for her own reasons.
13
RRR,J & HN,J W.P.31774 of 2023 & batch
21. The fact that the advocate of the petitioner had also signed the award would show that the claim of the petitioner that she was unaware of the terms of the award cannot be accepted. There is no allegation anywhere in the affidavit that her advocate had also joined hands with respondents 3 and 4, to cheat her. There are no averments as to what steps were proposed against the advocate of the petitioner for having allowed her to put thumb impression on the terms of the compromise, when they contained terms which were not acceptable to her. The explanation for the delay in filing the present writ petition has also not been explained to the satisfaction of this court. In such circumstances, this Court cannot accept the plea that the terms of compromise were obtained by way of fraud and misrepresentation.
22. Section 19(5) of the Legal Services Authority, 1987 reads as follows:
5. A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of--
(i) any case pending before; or
(ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any court for which the Lok Adalat is organised:
Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law.
14
RRR,J & HN,J W.P.31774 of 2023 & batch
23. This provision has two limbs. The first limb is that disputes which are presently before a Court can be settled before the Lok- Adalat. Secondly, disputes which have not been raised before any Court can also be settled before a Lok-Adalat. The petitioner contends that a Lok-Adalat, while settling disputes raised in a suit cannot include disputes which were not raised in the suit. This Court finds it difficult to accept such an interpretation. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the provisions relating to settlement of cases through the Lok- Adalat system is a beneficial legislation made for the purposes of creating an Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism for settlement of disputes. Such legislations need to be read in an expansive way and the ambit of the provisions cannot be restricted or whittled down by placing a conservative interpretation of the said provision.
24. Even if the interpretation sought by the petitioner is to be applied, it would only mean that two awards would have to be passed. One in relation to items 1 to 3 of the Lok-Adalat award and a separate award proceedings in relation to items 4 to 13 of the Lok-Adalat award. Such a contention, is misplaced as both limbs of Section 19(5) of the Legal Services Authority Act would have to be read together to mean that the Lok-Adalat while settling disputes raised in a suit can always take up disputes which have not been raised in the suit for the purposes of a comprehensive settlement of disputes between parties. 15
RRR,J & HN,J W.P.31774 of 2023 & batch Any other interpretation, would only whittle down the purpose for which these provisions have been enacted.
25. Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act reads as follows:
"any decree or order of a Court l[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];."
26. The said provision stipulates that any compromise decree of the Court, which deals with immovable properties which are not set out in the schedule of the suit, would require to be registered. Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act stipulates that an award of the Lok-Adalat shall be treated as a decree. In such circumstances, the award of the Lok-Adalat, dealing with properties which were not raised in a suit, would require registration.
27. However, the effect of non registration would have to be looked into. In the present case, the award was passed on 08.02.2020. It is only after the award is passed that the said award can be presented for registration. If such a document is not presented for registration, it may become unimplementable. Non registration would not render the document itself invalid. Section 49 of the Registration Act deals with the question of the effect of non registration of documents which are compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Section 49 only provides that such an unregistered 16 RRR,J & HN,J W.P.31774 of 2023 & batch document will not be acted upon. This would not mean that the document itself has to be declared as void or nonest or invalid.
28. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ______________ HARINATH.N,J RJS/BSM Date: 24-07-2024 After pronouncement of the Judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that any steps taken in pursuance of the award should be in accordance with law and by way of an Execution Petition.
It would suffice to observe that any award of the Lok-Adalat, under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 would have to be treated as decree and such decrees can be executed only by way of execution proceedings. It would also open to the petitioner to go into the question of whether the said award can be executed or not.
________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
_______________ HARINATH.N, J.
RJS/BSM 17 RRR,J & HN,J W.P.31774 of 2023 & batch HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION Nos.31774, 32131 & 32347 of 2023 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) Dt: 24.07.2024 RJS
