9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al is allowed. - RUMA PAL Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ. JUDGMENT Dr.AR. LAKSHMANAN,J. Leave granted. The above appeal is directed against the final order of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 27.8.2003 in CRP No. 1136/2003 allowing the Revision Petition filed by the Respondent herein. The Appellant and the Respondent are brothers, Respondent being the elder. They have another brother who is well employed in the United States. The three brothers partitioned the property left behind by their father by metes and bounds. The Respondent was running a theatre. A part of the theatre fell in the property allotted to the appellant. Since Respondent did not vacate and give vacant possession to the Appellant, he was constrained to file a suit for a mandatory injunction for removal of the building and to surrender vacant possession. The Appellant also prayed for a decree for recovery of possession. The appellant's suit was decreed as prayed for. When the matter was pending in appeal at the instance of the Respondent in the District Court, the dispute was referred to the Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act for resolution of the dispute. The matter was settle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt did not have the funds with him to have the deed of sale executed in his favour and the reasoning and the premises on which such a conclusion is based are faulty and fallacious besides being beyond jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the Respondent had not performed his obligations by evincing his willingness to execute the sale deed on receipt of the amount of ₹ 9.5 lakhs. Concluding his arguments, Mr Iyer submitted that the view taken by the High Court would totally defeat the object and purposes of the Legal Services Authorities Act and render the decisions of the Lok Adalat meaningless. Per contra, Mr. Vinod, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the appellant has not paid the sum of ₹ 9.5 lakhs after one year from the date of the award, namely, 5.10.1999 and at any rate within two years therefrom. It is further submitted that the appellant also did not deposit the amount before filing the execution petition as contemplated in the award. Even when he was examined in court on 22.2.2003, he had not deposited the said amount. According to Mr. Vinod, the award of the Lok Adalat cannot be equated with a decree and it only incorporates an agreement b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / 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. Before the executing Court witnesses were examined on both sides and Exhibit A1 to A8 and B1 were produced by the respective parties. The executing court, accepting the evidence of PW 1 came to the conclusion that the notice issued requiring the respondent to execute the document as submitted in the award was not received by the Judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent to evince his willingness to execute the sale deed within two years and not vice-versa as assumed by the High Court. There was already a decree of ejectment against the Respondent in the suit in the trial Court and it was his appeal that was sought to be settled in the Lok Adalat. The settlement was a concession in his favour giving a breathing time to vacate and give vacant possession. Therefore, the initiative had to come from the Respondent after offering to execute the sale deed where upon it became necessary to comply with his obligations. However, without taking any initiative the Respondent has adopted the delaying tactics by alleging that the appellant was not able to provide the requisite funds for purchase and forgetting the facts that the Appellant's brother is in USA and providing the requisite funds for purchase. It was he, in fact, who had provided the amount which was deposited on 7.4.2003 and not on 8.4.2003 as assumed by the High Court. It is, thus, seen that the Appellant has performed his obligation. He had sent the notice on 3.10.2001 and it was 4.10.2001 well before the expiry of time on 5.10.2001. Though the notice was correctly addressed and despite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t against the award. Section 22 reads thus :- 22. POWERS OF LOK ADALATS - (1) The Lok Adalat shall, for the purposes of holding any determination under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely : (a) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on oath; (b) the discovery and production of any document ; (c) the reception of evidence on affidavits ; (d) the requisitioning of any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any Court or Office; and (e) such other matters as may be prescribed. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers contained in sub-section (1), every Lok Adalat shall have the requisite powers to specify its own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before it. (3) All Proceedings before a Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Secs. 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and every Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purpose of Sec. 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Proced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at shall proceed and dispose the cases and arrive at a compromise or settlement by following the legal principles, equity and natural justice. Ultimately the Lok Adalat passes an award, and every such award shall be deemed to be a decree of Civil Court or as the case may be which is final. AWARD OF LOK ADALAT SHALL BE FINAL :- The Lok Adalat will passes the award with the consent of the parties, therefore there is no need either to reconsider or review the matter again and again, as the award passed by the Lok Adalat shall be final. Even as under Section 96(3) of C.P.C. that no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of the parties . The award of the Lok Adalat is an order by the Lok Adalat under the consent of the parties, and it shall be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court, therefore an appeal shall not lie from the award of the Lok Adalat as under Section 96(3) C.P.C. In Punjab National Bank vs. Lakshmichand Rah reported in AIR 2000 Madhya Pradesh 301, 304, the High Court held that The provisions of the Act shall prevail in the matter of filing an appeal and an appeal would not lie under the provisions of Section 96 C.P.C. Lok Adalat is conducted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a judgment whereby the court exercises its mind on a contested case. Rel. on; In 'In re South American and Mexican Co., Ex. Parte Bank of England', (1895) 1 Ch 37 ), it has been held that a judgment by consent or default is as effective an estoppel between the parties as a judgment whereby the Court exercises its mind on a contested case. Upholding the judgment of Vaughan Williams,J Lord Herschell said at page 50 :- The truth is, a judgment by consent is intended to put a stop to litigation between the parties just as much as is a judgment which results from the decision of the Court after the matter has been fought out to the end. And I think it would be very mischievous if one were not to give a fair and reasonable interpretation to such judgments, and were to allow questions that were really involved in the action to be fought over again in a subsequent action. To the like effect are the following observations of the Judicial Committee in 'Kinch v. Walvott', 1929 AC 482 at p.493 (D):- First of all their Lordships are clear that in relation to this plea of estoppel it is of no advantage to the appellant that the order in the libel action which is said to raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
