Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. Praveen Kumar, Ravi Nath Tilhari, JJ.
Badugu Panduranga Rao, S/o. Subba Rao – Petitioner
Versus
The Legal Services Authority, rep. by its Secretary, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 20458 of 2019
Decided On : 24-03-2022
Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 7 read with Section 10 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 304-B - Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226 - Appointment as guardian of minor children - Petitioner who worked as Assistant Line Man in A.P.Transoco was married on with one daughter of respondents 2 and 3 and out of their wedlock respondents 4 and 5 were born who are minors and studying in junior classes - On committed suicide and respondents lodged FIR in Crime Section 304-B Indian Penal Code (IPC) against petitioner in Police Station but finally in S.C petitioner was acquitted by court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Krishna District vide judgment - Minor children respondents 4 and 5 filed P.L.C. through respondents 2 and 3 before 1st respondent District Legal Services Authority against petitioner and petitioner’s superior officers in which respondents 2 and 3 and their relatives and followers pressurized and threatened petitioner to settle issue - Consequently pressure and threat petitioner signed illegal and improper settlement.
Finding of the Court:
That compromise/settlement was not signed voluntarily but was threat and compulsion deserves rejection - Signing of settlement is admitted to petitioner - Whether there was threat or compulsion is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in writ proceedings - Settlement is signed by petitioner other parties petitioner’s superior officers and respective counsel of parties - Award is not open to challenge on this ground - Respondents submitted that petitioner by signing award before Lok Adalat without raising any objection to its jurisdiction consented to jurisdiction of Lok Adalat and now he cannot challenge award as without jurisdiction - This submission deserves rejection - It is well settled that consent cannot confer jurisdiction when there is lack of inherent jurisdiction - In Hon’ble Apex Court held that if court inherently lacks jurisdiction consent cannot confer jurisdiction.
Result: Writ petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
1. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-Legal Services Authority, Sri K. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 and Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents 6 to 9.
2. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Badugu Panduranga Rao is challenging the award dated 02.11.2017 passed in Pre Litigation Case P.L.C.No.636 of 2017 by Lok Adalat Bench, Machilipatnam, Krishna District presided over by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.
3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner who worked as Assistant Line Man in A.P.Transoco was married on 24.08.2000 with one Padmaja, daughter of the respondents 2 and 3, and out of their wedlock, the respondents 4 and 5 were born, who are minors and studying in junior classes. On 06.09.2012, Padmaja committed suicide and the respondents 2 and 3 lodged FIR in Crime No.67 of 2012 dated 06.09.2012 under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the petitioner in Banthumilli Police Station, but finally, in S.C.No.165 of 2013 the petitioner was acquitted by the court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Machilpatnam at Krishna District, vide judgment dated 26.06.2018.
4. The minor children respondents 4 and 5 filed P.L.C.No.636 of 2017 through respondents 2 and 3, before the 1st respondent the District Legal Services Authority, Machilipatnam (Lok Adalat Bench) against the petitioner and the petitioner’s superior officers, in which the respondents 2 and 3 and their relatives and followers pressurized and threatened the petitioner to settle the issue. Consequently under pressure and threat the petitioner signed illegal and improper settlement. Even the terms and conditions of such settlement were neither shown to the petitioner nor to his superior officers to which they had not consented. The Lok Adalat at Machilipatnam, passed the award on 02.11.2017, on such settlement with as many as eleven conditions, as under:-
At the intervention of the members of Lok Adalat, this matter between both the parties with the following conditions:
“1. Both the parties agreed to withdraw the cases filed against each other.
2. The 1st respondent agreed to pay the arrears amount during the period i.e from September, 2012 to December, 2017 (Suspension period of 1st respondent). Out of the said arrears amount 75% of the amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit in any Nationalised Bank in the name of Badugu Venu Gopal till attaining his majority. The remaining 25% of the arrears amount shall be kept in any nationalized bank in the name of Minor Badugu Dindi Akshita till attaining her majority. The maternal grand mother by name Rajulapati Gopi Kumari will act as a guardian and nominee for those amounts. She shall not misappropriate the said amount. During the said period if the nominee will expire, the maternal uncle Rajulapati Venkateswara Rao will act as a guardian.
3. The 1st respondent has executed gift deed in favour of Minor girl Dindi Akshitha, an extent of 291 sq. yards situated at Movva Village, vide document No.2603 on dt. 25.10.2017. The said gift deed kept in the name of maternal grand mother, in case the maternal grand mother will expire the maternal uncle R. Venkateswara Rao will act as guardian, the said property shall not be alienated to anybody till the minor attains majority.
4. Petitioners agreed not to object the 1st respondent to marry any person at his wish.
5. The 1st respondent agreed to pay half of his salary amount in the name of Minors by name Badugu Venugopal and B. Dindi Akshita. The respondent agreed to pay the said amount till the marriage of Dindi Akshitha. The 1st respondent also agreed to pay the said amount till the minor by name B. Venu Gopal attaining majority, for the said amount the maternal grand mother R. Gopi Kumari will act as a guardian, in ca
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
