Point of Law : If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. K. Laldinliana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment Order dated 17.12.2020 and the Decree passed on the same date by the learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl in Declaratory Suit No.31 of 2019.

3. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents, the brief facts of the case is highlighted herein:-The parties are brothers and sisters and they used to live together with their mother Thangliani (late)during her life time in the suit land covered under LSC No. AZL-1480 of 1997 which belonged to their mother. However on her death, the dispute arose as to who would inherit the above mentioned property. A ‘will’ alleged to be executed by the late Thangliani which was in favour of the instant appellant was submitted in the Court for probate and registered as Probate 3/04. However, the parties being siblings the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for amicable settlement. The parties came to an amicable settle at Lok Adalat in its sitting held on 24.06.2004 and subsequently on 13.09.2007. On 24.06.2004 the terms of settlement was that the instant appellant is the heir of the property of her mother and shall possess the house. Her brother Mr. Laltanpuia (instant respondent No.1) has no objection to his sister Vanlalmawii (Appellant) possessing the house of her mother at Damveng (suit land). He made a vow that henceforth he will no longer make any trouble for his sister Vanlalmawii, the owner of the property, who, if she agrees, will allow her brother Laltanpuia to stay in her house at any time if Laltanpuia is also willing to stay. Thereafter, on 13.09.2007, the matter was again taken up at Lok Adalat for further settlement in respect of the terms of the settlement already arrived at on 24.06.2004. The additional terms added were that the Laltanpuia/respondent No.1 shall moved out from the suit land/building and live in a rented house with effect from 1st October, 2007 and the rent expenditure of Rs.1,200/-per month shall be borne by the appellant. Both the parties thereafter duly complied with the terms of agreement. However, the respondent No.1 then agitated the matter and approached the Lok Adalat again wherein it was noted in the order sheet for Lok Adalat dated 03.08.2019 that “Complainant is present. OP is absent. After perusal of the record as well as on hearing the complainant, the matter is hereby disposed of with a liberty to approach Civil Court for redress.” Thereafter, the present respondent no.1 filed the Declaratory Suit No.31/2019 claiming ownership of the suit land covered under LSC No. AZL-1480 of 1997 and the learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl passed the impugned ex-parte Judgment Order and Decree dated 17.12.2020, wherein the instant respondent No.1 was declared the owner of the suit land covered under LSC No.Azl-1480 of 1997 and the instant Appellant was directed to vacate the same. Hence being aggrieved, the instant appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the terms of agreement of settlement in the Lok Adalat dated 23.06.2004 and 13.09.2007 are binding upon the parties and is a decree of the Civil Court. If aggrieved by the terms of settlement they should have approached the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and or Article 227 of the Constitution. He further submitted that both the parties had initially duly complied with the terms of agreement made at Lok Adalat. However, the circumstances began to change when the respondent lived in a rent-free house belonging to one Mr. C. Lalramngaia of Damveng, Aizawl w.e.f. April, 2016 who being a family relative, did not demand any rent and the appellant also ceased to pay the rent for the house occupied by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 then again agitated the matter afresh and had again approached the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat in the absence of the appella