IMPORTANT POINT
The Lok-Adalat can settle disputes not included in pending suits, and non-registration of an award does not invalidate it.

ORDER :

(R. Raghunandan Rao, J.) :

Heard Sri G. Rama Chandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the District Legal Services Authority. Smt. N. Revathi, learned counsel for private respondents 3 and 7 in W.P.No.34774. Sri K. Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and respondent No.7 in W.P.No.32131 of 2023.

2. As the writ petitions arise out of the same set of facts and have been filed challenging a common Lok-Adalat Award, settling three separate suits, these writ petitions are being disposed of together.

3. These writ petitions arise between members of one family. The petitioner in these three writ petitions is the mother, respondent No.3 is one daughter, respondent No.7 is the son of respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 is the 2nd daughter of the petitioner. Respondent No.7 in W.P.No.32131 of 2023 is the daughter of respondent No.4 in W.P.No.31774 of 2023.

4. On account of disputes over right and claim over three items of property, O.S.No.100/11, O.S.No.204 of 2005, O.S.No.206 of 2005 and O.S.No.46 of 2007 were filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. O.S.No.279 of 2008 was before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole and is not covered by the award of the Lok Adalat.

5. It appears that O.S.No.46 of 2007 was filed by some tenants in the property and the same may not be relevant for the purposes of this writ petition.

6. As far as the remaining three cases are concerned all the parties to the said suits, had arrived at a settlement which were reduced to writing as terms of settlement and placed before the Lok- Adalat held in relation to the Senior Civil Judge Courts in Ongole. An award was passed in terms of the settlement placed before the Lok- Adalat, by way of an award dated 08.02.2020.

7. The said award, which is passed in the lines of the terms of settlement, provided that items 1 to 3, in the terms of settlement, which were the subject matter of the above suits, were to be allotted to the private respondents in the manner set out in the award. Apart from this, items 4 to 13, which were essentially agricultural lands, were made a part of the terms of settlement and the award even though they were not the subject matter of the suits.

8. After the passing of the award, the petitioner herein had filed the above three writ petitions challenging the award dated 08.02.2020. The petitioner chose to file three writ petitions on the ground that the settlement and award was passed in each of the three suits separately. Be that as it may, the petitioner challenged the Lok- Adalat award on three grounds. Firstly, the said award was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, secondly, the award could not have been passed without a prior settlement in relation to items 3 to 14 which had been reduced to writing and registered and thirdly, the award could not have been passed in relation to items 4 to 13 as they were not part of the dispute before the Court in the three suits and consequently could not have been brought into the settlement or the award.

9. Sri G. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner, who is the mother of respondents 3 and 4 trusted her daughters implicitly and had blindly signed on the document on the assurance of both the daughters that the settlement was essentially related to items 1 to 3 house properties and not in relation to the agricultural properties in which she had an interest. As her signatures were obtained in this manner, it would amount to fraud and misrepresentation requiring this Court to set aside the said award.

10. Sri G. Ramachandra Rao would contend that the settlement relating to items 4 to 13 is a settlement of matters which are outside the disputes raised in the suit and as such, Section 17(ii))(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 mandates the registration of such a document failing which the document would have to be treated as non- est and void. He would further su