Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Govardhana and Srinivasa, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the award/decree dated 07.04.2007 passed by the Lok Adalat and District Legal Service Authority, Udupi, in O.S. No. 54/2004. The suit was originally filed by the petitioners for partition and separate possession of plaint 'A' schedule properties and for cancellation of a partition deed executed on 15.03.2004. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit. Issues were framed and the case was posted for trial. At that stage, on a request, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat passed an award/decree on 07.04.2007. The petitioners challenged the award on the ground that it was not based on a genuine compromise or settlement between the parties, and that the procedure under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was not followed. The court examined the record and found that the award was passed without the proper consent of the parties and without any application of mind. The court held that the award was illegal and liable to be set aside. The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned award/decree dated 07.04.2007.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Lok Adalat Award - Validity - Section 21 Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - The award passed by the Lok Adalat must be based on a compromise or settlement between the parties. In the absence of proper consent and non-compliance with the procedure under Section 21, the award is liable to be set aside. The court held that the Lok Adalat award in question was not valid as the parties did not voluntarily compromise, and the award was passed without proper application of mind. (Paras 2-4)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction to set aside an award of the Lok Adalat if it is found to be illegal or without jurisdiction. The court held that the award was passed without following the mandatory requirements of the Legal Services Authorities Act, and thus, it was liable to be quashed. (Paras 1, 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the award/decree passed by the Lok Adalat in O.S. No. 54/2004 is valid and binding on the parties, and whether it can be set aside in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned award/decree dated 07.04.2007 passed in O.S. No. 54/2004 by the Lok Adalat and District Legal Service Authority, Udupi, is set aside.
Law Points
- Lok Adalat award
- consent of parties
- compromise decree
- Section 21 Legal Services Authorities Act
- 1987
- Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC
- writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (04) 112
W. P. NO. 23235/2012 (GM-CPC)
Sri K A Ariga (for petitioners), Sri S. B. Totad (for R6), Sri Sandesh T.B. (for R2, R4 & R5)
Sri Govardhana and Sri Srinivasa
Appi, Sri Sadananda, Sri Sudhakar, Bhujanga, Jayantha, Ashalatha
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award/decree passed by the Lok Adalat in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
Setting aside the award/decree dated 07.04.2007 passed by the Lok Adalat and District Legal Service Authority, Udupi, in O.S. No. 54/2004.
Filing Reason
The petitioners alleged that the award was not based on a genuine compromise and was passed without following the procedure under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Previous Decisions
The suit O.S. No. 54/2004 was filed for partition and separate possession. Issues were framed and the case was posted for trial. At that stage, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, which passed the impugned award/decree on 07.04.2007.
Issues
Whether the award/decree passed by the Lok Adalat is valid and binding on the parties?
Whether the award can be set aside in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the award was not based on a genuine compromise or settlement between the parties.
The petitioners contended that the procedure under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was not followed.
The respondents did not appear or contest the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi
An award passed by a Lok Adalat must be based on a genuine compromise or settlement between the parties. If the award is passed without proper consent and without following the procedure under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, it is illegal and can be set aside by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
Plaintiffs have preferred this writ petition seeking for setting aside the award / decree dated 07.04.2007 passed in O.S.No.54/2004 by the Lok Adalath and District Legal Service Authority, Udupi District, Udupi, which is produced in this case as Annexure-A.
Plaintiffs – Govardhana and Srinivasa filed O.S.No.54/2004 for partition and separate possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties in fair and equal manner and for cancellation of partition deed executed on 15.03.2004 in respect of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed O.S. No. 54/2004 for partition and separate possession. The defendants entered appearance and contested. Issues were framed and the case was posted for trial. At that stage, on a request, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, which passed the impugned award/decree on 07.04.2007. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award.
Acts & Sections
- Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: Section 21
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
