Allowed

Kozhinhileri Raman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Sept 2014OP(C)/1190/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition challenging an Award of a Lok Adalat. The court held the award executable because the compromise document relied upon was not part of the award and was not the subject of the Lok Adalat settlement, thereby quashing both the compromise and the award.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P4 and P5 (compromise and Award) are quashed. The suit is revived and restored to the Sub-Court. Parties directed to appear on 27.10.2014.

Kozhinhileri Raman Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/29TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

OP(C).No. 1190 of 2010 (O)

¶6

OS 25/1999 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

KOZHINHILERI RAMAN, AGED 70, S/O. CHANDU, KOZHINHILERI HOUSE, EDAVAKA P.O. KALLODY, EDAVAKA VILLAGE, MANANTHAVADY TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.P.V.VARGHESE (KANJIRAMATTOM)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.

¶12

THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, WAYANAD DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DISTRICT COURT, WAYANAD - 670 645.

¶13

ANNAN, S/O. KUNKAN, AGED 60 YEARS, KOZHINHILERI VEEDU, EDAVAKA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT - 670 645.

¶14

THEYI, W/O. ANNAN, AGED 50, KOZHINHILERI VEEDU, EDAVAKA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT - 670 645.

¶15

KUNJIRAMAN, S/O. ANNAN, AGED 27 YEARS, KOZHINHILERI VEEDU, EDAVAKA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT - 670 645.

¶16

RADHA, W/O. KUNJIRMAN, AGED 22 YEARS, KOZHINHILERI VEEDU, EDAVAKA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT - 670 645.

¶17

BABU, S/O. ANNAN, AGED 19 YEARS, KOZHINHILERI VEEDU, EDAVAKA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT - 670 645.

¶18

KELU, S/O. ANNAN, AGED 38, KOZHINHILERI VEEDU, EDAVAKA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT - 670 645.

¶19

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI.JOBY JOSEPH

¶20

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O.P.(C) 1190/2010

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1 :	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.25/1999 OF SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY.
EXT.P2:	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT.
EXT.P3 :	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT.
EXT.P4 :	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT IN ADALATH CASE NO.181/2010.
EXT.P5 :	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AWARD IN ADALATH CASE NO.181/2010.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY //

PA TO JUDGE

dl/

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶30

¶31

O.P. (Civil) No.1190 of 2010

¶32

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2014

¶33

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶34

The plaintiff in O.S. No.25/1999 of the

¶35

Subordinate Judge's Court, Sulthan Bathery, has come up by challenging Ext.P5 award dated 12.06.2010 passed by the Lok Adalat constituted by the Wayanad District Legal Services Authority. The contents of the award is as follows:-

¶36

“Matter settled. Court fee may be refunded. Suit is dismissed. Joint statement will form part of this suit.”

¶37

Even though there were six defendants in the suit, it seems

¶38

that the 1^st defendant alone has affixed his signature in Ext.P5.

¶39

According to the petitioner, he is an illiterate person belongs to a scheduled tribe (tribal). Being a forest

¶40

dweller, he was not aware of any legal procedures or

¶41

OPC.1190/2010

¶42

: 2 :

¶43

proceedings in court. He had filed the suit seeking a relief of perpetual injunction as well as recovery of possession of a part of the property, which the defendants had allegedly reduced into their possession. The said item, over which the recovery was sought for, is scheduled as plaint B schedule item.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.C.Varghese Kuriakose and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. The other respondents are not contesting. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not aware of the contents of Ext.P4. He is not aware of the terms and conditions contained in Ext.P4. It seems that in such a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction as well as recovery of possession, a compromise was allegedly entered into, in the form of Ext.P4 showing that the plaintiff has undertaken to execute a document in favour of the defendants. Strangely enough, it seems that the Lok Adalat

¶45

OPC.1190/2010

¶46

: 3 :

¶47

has ordered through Ext.P5 that the said joint statement will 'form part of the suit'. It has not been stated in Ext.P5 award that such a compromise will form part of the award. At any stretch of imagination, when such a compromise does not form part of Ext.P5 award, the award cannot be executed.

¶48

Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out another gross illegality in the matter that Ext.P4 is a compromise allegedly filed before the court below. It was not filed before the Lok Adalat. Evidently, Ext.P4 is not the subject matter of a settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalat. Only through a settlement and compromise arrived at in the Lok Adalat, the Lok Adalat can pass an award. From all the above, it is evident that there are glaring illegalities in Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is not legally sustainable. It seems that Ext.P4 is not the result of a settlement. Matters being so, Ext.P4 is also to be ignored. Any how, it has not been ordered in Ext.P5 that Ext.P4 shall form part of Ext.P5. Therefore, there is no executable award

¶49

OPC.1190/2010

¶50

: 4 :

¶51

passed by the Lok Adalat in this case. Matters being so, Exts.P4 and P5 are liable to be quashed.

¶52

In the result, this Original Petition (Civil) is allowed and Exts.P4 and P5 are quashed. The suit is revived and restored. The court below shall proceed with the suit. The parties shall appear before the court below on 27.10.2014.

¶53

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶54

aks/20/09

¶55

// True Copy //

¶56

PA to Judge

Kozhinhileri Raman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kozhinhileri Raman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Petronet Cck Limited Vs K.v.Varghese

M/S.Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Vs Chinchu Sugunan

K.C.Premavathi Vs the State of Kerala

K.Madhavan Vs the State of Kerala and Others

M/S.Hemambika Chittes Vs v.C.Balachandran

Vasu Vs State of Kerala & Anr.