Second appeal against a decree from a Lok-Adalat compromise. The court held that Section 96 CPC appeal is not maintainable against an award. The aggrieved third party must file a writ petition or a separate suit.
Interim relief extended by four weeks; Appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:BHC-AS:5983
246sa788-17j
sa_mandawgad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.788 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1547 OF 2017 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.788 OF 2017
Age – 37 years, Occu : Labour R/o. Behind Digole Kiran Shop, H.N.443/2, Thobade Vasti, Degaon Naka, Solapur.
1/18
246sa788-17j
Versus
1AA. Amar Bashir Shaikh Age -40 years, Occu.-Agriculture R/o. Shripur, Tal-Malshiras Dist-Solapur
1B. Nasir Nijam Shaikh Age -68 years, Occu.-Agriculture R/o. Angar (Mulani Galli), Tal-Mohol, Dist-Solapur-413214
2/18
246sa788-17j
Tal. Mohol, Dist-Solapur-413253
Age -62 years, Occu.-Household R/o. Ghari (Slum Area Latur Road), Near Tukai Mandir, Tal-Barshi, Dist-Solapur-413404
1F. Aabida Yakub Mulani Age -60 years, Occu.-Household, R/at. Ghari, Tal-Barshi, Dist-Solapur- 413404
1G. Salima Shiraj Pathan Age-58 years, Occu- Household R/at – Barshi (Abhinav School 422, Khaja Nagar), Tal – Barshi, Dist-Solapur Pin code -413411
Age -57 years, Occu.-Household R/at. Puri, Tal-Barshi, Dist-Solapur
1I. Dilshan Jainuddin Shaikh Age -55 years, Occu.-Household R/at – Solapur (old Degaon Naka, Thobade Wasti), Sufiya Wadapav Center Solapur.
Age – 53 yrs., Occu. Agri. R/o. Ghodeshwar, Tal. Mohol District- Solapur
3/18
246sa788-17j
Mr. A.B. Tajane, Advocate for the Appellants. Ms. Rekha Musale, Advocate for Respondent No.1C, 1D and 6. Mr. Rupesh Zade, Ms.Priyanka Gupta, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5.
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. Reserved on : FEBRUARY 01, 2024 Pronounced on : FEBRUARY 07, 2024
JUDGMENT :
4/18
246sa788-17j
2014 was preferred by the original-plaintiff against the original defendants seeking partition of the suit property described in plaint paragraph no.1. The Appellants were not party to the suit. It was pleaded that the suit property was belonging to one Mr. Gulab Husen Pathan, who was married to Malanbi. Gulab Husen Pathan expired on 2nd September, 1975 and Malanbi expired on 15th March, 1992. Gulab and Malanbi had two daughters i.e. the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and two sons by name Babu and Ambir. Babu expired on 26th June, 1977 and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the children of Babu and the defendant no.4 is the brother of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that suit property, after the death of Gulab and Malanbi devolved upon plaintiffs, Babu and Defendant No.4 and their names were mutated in revenue records. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that after the death of Babu, the name of his legal heirs were mutated in the revenue records. That, the plaintiffs and Defendants were Cultivating their share of the suit lands. That partition was demanded from Defendants, however, the same has been refused.
5/18
246sa788-17j
No.4 admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. Subsequently, compromise pursis was filed between the parties marked Exhibit44, by which the parties arrived at amicable settlement in the LokAdalat and accordingly the decree was passed.
6/18
246sa788-17j
name of his legal heirs were entered in the 7/12 extract. The name of Saheblal and Papalal were not entered in the revenue records, whereas after the death of Husen his three sons i.e. Saheblal, Gulab and Papalal are the owners of the suit lands. The Appellants came with the case that by taking advantage of the names entered into the revenue records, the plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.6 of 2014 in collusion with the Defendants and compromised the matter in haste on 12th March, 2015 and by the decree got partitioned the whole property between themselves only, discarding the shares of the legal heirs of the Saheblal and Papalal. 6. It was further contended that the Appellants i.e. the heirs of Papalal had initiated proceedings before the Revenue Officer for entering their name in the Revenue Record of which notice was served to the original-plaintiffs and the defendants. Despite thereof, the Appellants were not made party to the proceedings and by committing fraud on the Court, the matter was compromised. It was also contended that the Tahsildar by judgment and order dated 1st December, 2015 had allowed the Review Petition and ordered that mutation entry no.1602 be
7/18
246sa788-17j
certified by which name of the Appellants are entered into 7/12 extracts. It was contended that the present Appellants have executed registered sale-deed dated 19th March, 2015 in favour of one Mrs.Ghodake, in respect of the suit land admeasuring 7 H. 15 R. out of 21 H. 35 R. out of Gat No.290. It was contended that the decree passed by the Lok-Adalat is null and void and has been obtained by committing fraud on the Court.
“POINTS FINDINGS
No
8/18
246sa788-17j
“A. R.C.S. No.6/2014 was filed in the Court of Hon’ble C.J.J.D., Mohol for partition and separate possession without
9/18
246sa788-17j
joining the appellants who are also having right in the suit property and they are also having share in the suit property being the legal heirs of original owner, and by suppressing the said fact consent decree was obtained thereby depriving the rights of the Appellants and hence whether the appellate Court was required to set aside the same.
B. When the Learned Lower Appellate Court has granted permission to file the Appeal and condoned the delay in such a situation after accepting the rights of the Appellant and considering them as aggrieved parties ought not to have dismissed the Appeal on the ground that the same is not maintainable as per Section 96(3) of CPC.”
Ms. Rekha Musale, learned counsel for Respondent No.1C, 1D and 6 and Mr. Rupesh Zade, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5.
10/18
246sa788-17j
accepting the rights of the Appellants and as such could not have dismissed the Appeal on the ground that the same was not maintainable under Section 96(3) of CPC. He submits that the decree of the trial Court being obtained by fraud, the same is nullity and was required to be set aside.
11/18
246sa788-17j
compromise can file a separate suit for the purpose. Before proceeding further, it will be profitable to reproduce Section 96 of the CPC, which reads as under:
“96. Appeal from original decree.— (1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.
(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.
(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties.
(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed ten thousand rupees.”
Court in the case of V. N. Krishna Murthy and Another v. Ravikumar and Others in (2020) 9 SCC 501 , was considering an
issue where a third party had challenged the decree passed by the
12/18
246sa788-17j
trial Court. The Apex Court noted that Sections 96 and 100 of the CPC do not provide for categories of person, who can file an Appeal. The Apex Court held in paragraph Nos.15, 16, 17 and 18, as under:
“ 15. Sections 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for preferring an appeal from any original decree or from decree in appeal, respectively. The aforesaid provisions do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal. However, it is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies the Court that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. It is only where a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the appellate court. Reference be made to the observation of this Court in Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd.: (SCC p. 575, para 3)
"3. ... It is well settled that a person who is not a party to the suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of the appellate court and such leave should be granted if he would be prejudicially affected by the judgment."
16. This Court in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh while dealing with the maintainability of appeal by a person who is not party to a suit has observed thus: (SCC p. 104, para 83)
"83. Firstly, there is a catena of authorities which, following the dictum of Lindley, L.J., Securities Insurance Co., In re' have laid down the rule that a person who is not a party to a decree or order may with
13/18
246sa788-17j
the leave of the Court, prefer an appeal from such decree or order if he is either bound by the order or is aggrieved by it or is prejudicially affected by it.” (emphasis in original)
17. In Baldev Singh V. Surinder Mohan Sharma, this Court held that an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, would be maintainable only at the instance of a person aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree. While dealing with the concept of person aggrieved, it was observed in para 15 as under: (SCC pp. 39-40)
“15. ... A person aggrieved to file an appeal must be one whose right is affected by reason of the judgment and decree sought to be impugned.”
18. In A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P. this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 628-29, para 25).
“25. … The expression "aggrieved person" denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which the contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and the extent of the complainant's interest and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant.”
is settled that even a stranger to the suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court and such leave should be granted
if he would be prejudicially affected by the judgment. In the
14/18
246sa788-17j
present case, as the leave was granted by the Appellate Court, prima facie, the Appellate Court was of the opinion that the rights of the Appellants were prejudicially affected. Considering the decision of the Apex Court as noted above the finding of the Appellate Court that the Appellant is required to file a suit for the purpose is legally unsustainable. It was necessary for the Appellate Court to render a finding as to whether the Appellants can be said to be person aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court and if found to be so, considering the decision of the Apex Court the Appellant would have a right to file an Appeal.
“21. Award of Lok Adalat. —
(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of section 20, the court-fee paid in such case shall
15/18
246sa788-17j
be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-fees Act, 1870.
(2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.”
. Plain reading of the provision indicates the finality attached to the Award of Lok-Adalat. As such, no Appeal would lie under Section 96 of the CPC against the Award.
16/18
246sa788-17j
“12. It is true that a party aggrieved by the Lok Adalat award can approach the High Court if it discovers any fraud post the Lok Adalat award. It is equally true that the third party, which is not a litigant in a suit which has suffered a compromise decree, can also file a separate suit for seeking a declaration that such decree which affects the rights of the third party, would not be binding upon the said party as the said decree was delivered in the matter in which, such third party was never arrayed. It, therefore, appears that an option to either prefer a separate suit or file a writ petition in the High Court would be available to such third party. At times, the issue of limitation would crop up and the suit to be preferred by such third party might be barred, of course, subject to the date of the knowledge of such decree.”
Appeal was to the Award of the Lok-Adalat, the remedy of the Appellants was either to file a separate suit seeking a declaration that the decree of the Lok-Adalat is not binding upon the Appellants or to file a Writ Petition in this Court.
17/18
246sa788-17j
(Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.)
(Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.)
18/18
Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/02/2024 19:06:03
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC is maintainable against a decree resulting from a Lok-Adalat award.
Whether a third party excluded from a compromise decree can challenge it via appeal or writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Khalil Haji Bholumiya Salar vs. ParveenReferred¶7
Khalil Haji Bholumiya Salar vs. Parveen w/o. Sayyeduddin
V. N. Krishna Murthy and Another v. Ravikumar and OthersApplied¶95
V. N. Krishna Murthy and Another v. Ravikumar and Others
Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd.Explained¶99
Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd.
State of Punjab v. Amar SinghExplained¶101
State of Punjab v. Amar Singh
Baldev Singh V. Surinder Mohan SharmaExplained¶105
Baldev Singh V. Surinder Mohan Sharma
A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P.Explained¶108
A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P.
K.Srinivasappa & Ors. v. M. Mallamma & Ors.Referred¶83
K.Srinivasappa & Ors. v. M. Mallamma & Ors.
Bhargavi Constructions and Anr. vs. Khothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Ors.Applied¶124
Bhargavi Constructions and Anr. vs. Khothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Ors.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Husen Papa Pathan and others
Smt. Jannatbi @ Malanbi Nizam Shaikh and others
Sharmila U. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
