The Court set aside a Lok Adalat settlement award holding that the fourth defendant lacked authority to represent other heirs. The original property suit for specific performance is restored to proceed.
The settlement award (Ext.P2) is quashed and O.S. No.97/2010 is restored.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/26TH BHADRA, 1936
OP(C).No. 79 of 2011 (O)
OS 97/2010 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA
PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 1,3 & 4:
BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
SRI.K.JAGADEESH
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & D2:
R2 BY ADV. SMT.V.RENJU R1 BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OPC.79/2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, ALAPUZHA (TO BE FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA) OS.97/2010 DATED 24.4.2010.
P2 COPY OF THE ORDER OF LOK ADALAT, TALUK LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, MAVELIKKARA DATED 24.9.2010.
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
B. KEMAL PASHA, J.
O.P. (Civil) No.79 of 2011
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2014
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Defendants 1, 3 and 4 in O.S. No.97/2010 of the
Subordinate Judge's Court, Mavelikkara have come up by challenging Ext.P2 award in terms of settlement passed by the Lok Adalat constituted by the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Mavelikkara on 24.09.2010.
respect of plaint A schedule property, the 1st defendant as well as each of his children are entitled to get a fractional share of
1/6 in plaint A schedule property.
OPC.79/2011
: 2 :
the 2nd defendant. Plaint C schedule property belongs to the 3rd defendant. Plaint D schedule items (D1 and D2) belong to the 4th defendant.
other two children. It seems that the 2nd defendant, without any right or authority, had allegedly represented other defendants also in the Lok Adalat and entered in a settlement thereby agreeing to execute the sale deed in respect of the properties in favour of the plaintiffs within 30 days from 24.09.2010. The petitioners have come up by challenging Ext.P2.
OPC.79/2011
: 3 :
whom other properties belong. The Lok Adalat ought not to have permitted the 2nd defendant alone to represent the other defendants. The other defendants are not bound by Ext.P2 award based on such a settlement. The suit has to be proceed with, for which Ext.P2 award passed by the Lok Adalat has to be set aside and the suit has to be restored.
In the result, the Original Petition (Civil) is allowed and Ext.P2 is quashed. O.S. No.97/2010 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mavelikkara is revived and restored. The parties interested shall proceed with the suit. The parties shall appear before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mavelikkara on 20.10.2014.
Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)
aks/17/09
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Lok Adalat award is binding on defendants who were not represented in the settlement proceedings.
Whether the second defendant had authority to represent absent heirs in the composition settlement.
Whether the original suit for specific performance should be restored after setting aside the settlement award.
Lekshmikutty Amma
Rajamma
Lalithakumari
Abdul Mujeeb
Kesava Pillai
B. Kemal Pasha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
