Point of law : Lok Adalat – Compromise award – cannot be challenged.

JUDGMENT :

Can a party to the award passed by the Lok Adalat challenge the award on the ground that he did not comprehend the true nature and consequence of the terms of the compromise forming part of the award? This is the question called for consideration of this Court in this writ petition.

2. The plaintiff in O.S. No.105/2012 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Ranny has preferred this writ petition challenging Ext.P7 award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'LSA Act'). The writ petitioner expired during the pendency of this proceedings and his legal representative is impleaded as per order dated 23.09.2020 in I.A. No.03 of 2020.

3. To state the essential facts, the writ petitioner (petitioner) was the plaintiff in O.S No.105/2012 and the defendants therein are the respondents herein. The petitioner instituted Ext.P1 suit seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents herein from trespassing into his property having an extent of 1 Acre 53.500 Cents lying in Survey No. 165/2 in Chittar-Seethathodu Village (plaint schedule property in the suit) and from cutting open a new way through the same.

4. Later, one Susamma, the wife of the 2nd respondent, instituted O.S No.125/2012 (Ext.P2) claiming easement right of way by prescription through the properties of petitioner and 4 others having property on the western side of plaint schedule property in Ext.P1 suit.

5. Days later, one Mercy Raju, the wife of the 1st respondent, preferred O.S.No.151/2012 (Ext.P3) wherein the petitioner was arrayed as 1st defendant and P.K.Rajamma and Mr. R. Wilson, having property on the western side of the plaint schedule property as defendants 2 and 3, seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from further trespassing into the way allegedly used by the plaintiff in Ext.P3 and for a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendants 2 and 3 to remove the encroachments over the way and restore the same into its original state.

6. Exts.P2 and P3 suits were dismissed for default. Later, Ext.P3 suit was restored and ex-parte decree in favour of the petitioner in Ext.P1 suit was set-aside.

7. While so, Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 suits were referred to Lok Adalat by the Ranny Taluk Legal Services Committee under Section 20 (2) of the LSA Act.

8. In the Lok Adalat organised by the Taluk Legal Services Committee under Section 19 of the LSA Act on 12.12.2015, Ext.P7 award was passed in terms of the compromise filed by the parties. The operative portion of Ext. P7 award is extracted below:-

“Both sides present. Matter discussed and settled. Compromise filed. Award passed as per the terms of compromise and compromise shall form part of award.”

As per the compromise which forms part of Ext.P7 award, the petitioner is to allow the respondents to use a 2 meter wide way entirely through the plaint schedule property in Ext.P1 in the north-south direction along eastern side of the boundary retaining wall of Wilson, Sasthramannil and others. It is further stated therein that the said way is to be given in such a manner giving direct access to Vayyattupuzha-Kulangaravaley public road without causing damage to the rubble wall on the western side and to plaint schedule property on the eastern side. In consideration of providing way, it was agreed that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) will be given to the petitioner by the respondents.

9. Contending that the compromise agreement which forms part of Ext.P7 award is ab initio void and not a valid one in the eye of law, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to set aside Ext. P7 award and the compromise forming part of the same. According to the petitioner, he had not put his signature on the compromise agreement with full volition and free mind and completely understanding the true nature and consequence of the same. He, who was aged 80 year