9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (8) TMI 721 - SC - Indian LawsJurisdiction Of High Court to extend the time for depositing the money, awarded from Lok Adalat - Validity of order of Lok Adalat based on mutual compromise - High court set aside the order of Lok Adalat - Suit for partition and separate possession of property - Compromise entered into between parties - HELD THAT - It is seen from the records that the Appellant was compelled to file the suit for recovery of possession of Plot No. 2 since the Respondent herein refused to comply with the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The suit was decreed on 26.7.1990 and appeal was filed by the Judgment Debtor Respondent before the District Court and during the pendency of the appeal the matter was compromised between parties on 5.10.1999. We have already extracted the terms of compromise in paragraph supra. It is thus clear that the decree holder Appellant has approached the executing court on the ground that the Judgment debtor/ Respondent failed to execute the sale deed after receiving ₹ 9.5 lakhs from the decree holder. Therefore the Appellant prayed before the Executing Court that he should be permitted to deposit ₹ 9.5 lakhs in that court and get the documents executed through court if the Judgment debtor failed to do so on issuance of notice for the purpose by the executing court. The respondent submitted that the compromise arrived at is a conditional one and Judgment debtor is liable to execute the sale deed in favour of the decree holder only if he remits the amount as agreed, and since decree holder has failed to comply with the conditions the Judgment debtor is not bound by the terms of the compromise. On the other hand the respondent/J.D. was ready and willing to deposit ₹ 3.5 lakhs before the executing court as per the terms of the compromise. The High Court, in our view, has also misinterpreted Section 27 of the Post Office Act. The requirement of Section has been complied with in this case. The reasoning of the High Court on this issue is not correct and not in accordance with factual position. In the notice issued, the Postman has made the endorsement. This presumption is correct in law. He had given notice and intimation. Nevertheless, the respondent did not receive the notice and it was returned unserved. Therefore, in our view, there is no obligation cast on the appellant to examine the Postman as assumed by the High Court. The presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act operates apart from that under the Post Office Act. In our opinion, the award of the Lok Adalat is fictionally deemed to be decrees of Court and therefore the courts have all the powers in relation thereto as it has in relation to a decree passed by itself. This, in our opinion, includes the powers to extend time in appropriate cases. In our opinion, the award passed by the Lok Adalat is the decision of the court itself though arrived at by the simpler method of conciliation instead of the process of arguments in court. The effect is the same. In this connection, the High Court has failed to note that by the award what is put an end to is the appeal in the District Court and thereby the litigations between brothers forever. The view taken by the High Court, in our view, will totally defeat the object and purposes of the Legal Services Authorities Act and render the decision of the Lok Adalat meaningless. The High Court, in our view, has failed to note that the courts attempt should be to give life and enforceability to the compromise award and not to defeat it on technical grounds. This is a fit case, in our view, where the Respondent ought to have been directed to execute the sale deed by the extended time, if necessary. The High Court is also not correct in holding that the Court has no jurisdiction to extend the time. In our view, the learned Subordinate Judge has rightly extended the time for depositing the money which the High Court has wrongly interfered with. We, therefore, hold that the order passed by the High Court in C.R.P. 1136/2003 is liable to be set aside. We do so accordingly. We direct the Respondent herein to execute the sale deed within two weeks from today failing which the Appellant could get the sale deed executed though court as stipulated in the award. The respondent is now entitled to withdraw ₹ 9.5 lakhs from the Sub-Court Alapuzha. Though this is a fit case for awarding cost, we refrain from doing so in view of the relationship between the parties. The appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Execution of the sale deed as per the Lok Adalat award. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 C.P.C. 3. Compliance with the terms of the Lok Adalat award. 4. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Post Office Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 5. Legal status and enforceability of Lok Adalat awards. Detailed Analysis: 1. Execution of the Sale Deed as per the Lok Adalat Award: The appellant and the respondent, who are brothers, had a dispute over the possession of a property that was settled by a Lok Adalat award. The award stipulated that the respondent was to execute a sale deed in favor of the appellant on payment of Rs. 9.5 lakhs within a specified period. The respondent failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time despite repeated requests and notices from the appellant. Consequently, the appellant sought the execution of the award through the Trial Court, which directed the appellant to deposit the amount, which he did within the given time frame. The High Court, however, dismissed the execution petition, leading to the present appeal. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 C.P.C.: The appellant argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. by delving into questions of fact and evidence appraisal, which is beyond its scope. The High Court was criticized for holding that the appellant did not have the funds to execute the sale deed and for misinterpreting the terms of the Lok Adalat award. 3. Compliance with the Terms of the Lok Adalat Award: The appellant demonstrated his readiness and willingness to comply with the award by sending notices and a telegram to the respondent, which went unclaimed. The Trial Court accepted the appellant's evidence and directed the deposit of Rs. 9.5 lakhs. The High Court, however, misinterpreted the terms of the award, assuming the initiative should come from the appellant rather than the respondent. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had fulfilled his obligations under the award and that the respondent had adopted delaying tactics. 4. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Post Office Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act: The High Court's interpretation of Section 27 of the Post Office Act was deemed incorrect. The Supreme Court held that the presumption of service of notice under Section 114 of the Evidence Act applied, as the notice was correctly addressed and returned unclaimed. The appellant had no obligation to examine the postman, contrary to the High Court's assumption. 5. Legal Status and Enforceability of Lok Adalat Awards: The Supreme Court emphasized that Lok Adalat awards are deemed decrees of the court and are enforceable as such. The court has the power to extend the time for compliance in appropriate cases. The High Court's view that the court lacked jurisdiction to extend the time was incorrect. The Supreme Court highlighted the purpose of the Legal Services Authorities Act, which aims to provide speedy and cost-effective justice, and noted that the High Court's decision undermined this objective. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, directing the respondent to execute the sale deed within two weeks, failing which the appellant could get it executed through the court. The respondent was allowed to withdraw Rs. 9.5 lakhs from the Sub-Court Alapuzha. The appeal was allowed without costs, considering the relationship between the parties.
|
