Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by five individuals claiming to be members of the same family as the respondents, all descendants of one Khemmani Hanumanthappa. They sought to quash a compromise decree dated 08.07.2023 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospete, in O.S.No.165/2023, which had been drawn on a compromise petition entered into between the respondents before the Lok Adalat. The original suit, filed on 19.04.2023 by the first respondent against the other respondents, was for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties. A genealogical tree was placed, and on 08.07.2023, the parties filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Lok Adalat passed an award accepting the compromise and decreeing the suit accordingly. The petitioners, who were not parties to the suit, alleged that they too were descendants with a legitimate share in the properties and that the genealogical tree was incomplete. They claimed the compromise was entered into with an ulterior motive to deprive them of their rights. Initially, they filed a regular appeal (R.A.No.41/2024) but withdrew it upon realizing it was not maintainable. The writ petition was then filed on 14.03.2025. The court framed three issues: (1) whether a decree on an award of the Lok Adalat can be challenged in a writ petition; (2) whether such a petition by a third party is maintainable; and (3) whether the decree needs to be recalled. The petitioners argued they were necessary parties and that the decree was obtained by fraud, while the respondents contended that third parties cannot maintain a writ petition and must file a suit. The court examined the legal provisions, noting that under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, an award of the Lok Adalat is deemed a decree and is final with no appeal. It referred to Supreme Court decisions in Bhargavi Constructions and Katragadda Ramakrishnaiah, which held that a consent decree can be challenged on grounds like fraud, but only by a party to the proceedings. Relying on State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh and other High Court precedents, the court held that a stranger to the decree cannot invoke Article 226, and disputed questions of fact regarding the petitioners’ rights cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The proper remedy is a separate suit for declaration and partition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to pursue appropriate civil remedies.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 96(3) CPC - An award of the Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court and is final and binding, with no appeal provided under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. A consent decree is not appealable under Section 96(3) CPC. However, a challenge can be made by filing a writ petition under Article 226 or a suit on grounds such as fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction. (Paras 19-21) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - A writ petition challenging an award of the Lok Adalat is not maintainable at the instance of a third party who was not a party to the proceedings. A stranger to a decree cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to challenge a consent decree; their remedy is to file a separate suit to establish their rights. (Paras 22-27) C) Civil Procedure - Remedy of Stranger to Decree - Proper Remedy - A person who claims to be a necessary party to a partition suit but was not impleaded cannot challenge the compromise decree by way of a writ petition. The proper course is to file a suit for declaration and partition to assert their rights, as disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in writ proceedings. (Paras 25, 28-31)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a decree passed on the award of the Lok Adalat can be challenged in a writ petition; whether a writ petition filed by a third party who was not a party to the proceedings is maintainable; whether the compromise decree requires to be recalled in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. A third party who was not a party to the proceedings before the Lok Adalat cannot challenge the award under Article 226 of the Constitution. The proper remedy is to file a separate suit for declaration and partition. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Lok Adalat award deemed decree under Legal Services Authorities Act
- 1987
- Section 21 and is final and non-appealable
- consent decree not appealable under Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- writ petition under Article 226 not maintainable by third party against compromise decree
- stranger to decree must file separate suit to enforce rights
- disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction
