IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the award of the Lok Adalat is final and binding on all parties to the dispute, and the only remedy available to challenge the award is by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and that too on very limited grounds.

JUDGMENT :

Harish Tandon, J.

1. There has been a slew of litigations between the parties to the present suit or their predecessors in relation to the properties being the subject matter of the instant suit claiming undivided right, title and interest therein and/or on the strength of the probate granted to the Will of the original owner namely Bidhubhusan Samanta.

2. The instant appeal arises from an order disposing of an application for temporary injunction holding that the plaintiff/respondent have made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience and inconvenience lies in their favour and in the event the injunction is not granted they would suffer irreparable loss and injury.

3. The salient facts involved in the instant appeal are required to be adumbrated before we embark upon the legality and/or infirmity of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Admittedly, Bidhubhusan Samanta was the owner of the property described in the plaint of the instant proceeding and made and published his last Will on 11.10.1958 and got the same duly registered with the sub-Registry Office. By virtue of the said Will, the said testator, the Bidhubhusan Samanta, bequeathed his 1/4th share each in respect of the properties owned and possessed by him to his three sons namely Gobardhan Samanta, Lakshmi Narayan Samanta and Shyam Sundar Samanta and the remaining 1/4th share was bequeathed to other two grandsons Sambhu Nath Samanta and Asit Samanta. Undeniably, the said testator died on 29.6.1960 and a probate application was filed by one of the executors for grant in solemn form. After the citation was issued, the other executor namely Biswanath Samanta lodged the caveat and filed an affidavit in support thereof challenging the genuinity and the authenticity of the said Will. The record would reveal that the said probate proceeding was converted into a letter of administration proceeding and compromise was entered into wherein the said Biswanath Samanta was given 8 anna shares in respect of the entire properties. Subsequently, the letter of administration was granted by the Competent Court but there appears some dispute amongst the parties on the effect and/or intricacies of the said letter of administration which we will deal in extenso in the latter portion of this judgment.

4. Subsequently, the said Biswanath Samanta filed a suit for partition claiming 8 anna shares in respect of the entire properties on the premise of a compromise having entered in the probate proceeding which was decreed in preliminary form by the Trial Court. Some of the parties to the aforesaid partition suit preferred the first appeal i.e., FA 364 of 1977, before this Court. The said appeal was allowed on 16.5.1991 setting aside the preliminary decree with categorical observations that the grant of probate cannot be circumscribed by any terms in the compromise. There was no further challenge before the Supreme Court against the judgment and decree passed in FA 364 of 1977 by the Division Bench of this Court. Another suit being Title Suit no. 199 of 1992 was filed by the said Biswanath Samanta for enforcement of an agreement dated 5.7.1967 which was entered into by and between the parties during the probate proceeding which was ultimately dismissed at the preliminary stage on the ground of its maintainability. There was no further challenge to an order of dismissal of the said suit before the higher forum. Subsequent thereto, the appellant no. 1 herein filed Title Suit no. 23 of 2011 claiming partition and separation of the shares impleading some of the parties to the suit which ultimately ended in compromise through Lok Adalat. Subsequently the plaintiff/respondent filed a partition suit being Title Suit no. 486 of 2016 before the Trial Court which was dismissed for default on 4.4.2018. Without making an attempt for restoration of the said suit being Title Suit no. 486 of 2016, another suit is filed by the plaintiff/respondent being Title Suit no. 170 of 2019 for