Back
In the High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench)
S. Vimala, J.
Usharani & others - Petitioners
Versus
Rajaram & others - Respondents
C.R.P.(MD) Nos. 2744 to 2747 of 2012 (NPD) and M.P.(MD) Nos. 1 to 1 of 2012
Decided on : May 8, 2013
Estoppel - Settlement - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 21(2), Section 96(3), Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India - Indian Evidence Act, Section 44 - Principle of Finality of Litigation - Lok Adalat - Compromise - Settlement
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the validity of a compromise settlement and subsequent award obtained from the Lok Adalat by siblings regarding partition of trust properties acquired by the government. The defendants contested the validity of the compromise decree, alleging fraud and illegality.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise settlement and subsequent award obtained from the Lok Adalat were final and binding on the parties, and no further remedy by way of appeal was available. The court rejected the challenges to the compromise decree as vexatious and condemned the defendants' attempts to delay the execution.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the compromise settlement, the binding nature of the Lok Adalat award, and the allegations of fraud and illegality raised by the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a compromise settlement and award obtained from the Lok Adalat were final and binding on the parties, with no further remedy by way of appeal. The court also emphasized the principle of finality of litigation and condemned vexatious challenges to the compromise decree.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petitions, rejected the challenges to the compromise decree, and condemned the defendants' attempts to delay the execution. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
1. “My word is my bond irrespective of whether there is consideration to support it. Once a man gives a promise or assurance to his neighbour on which the neighbour relies he should not be allowed to go back on it…. It is a Principle of Justice and Equity.” - Lord Denning, thus, explained the Principle of Estoppel in the book, “Discipline of Law”.
2. “Settlement” is termination of Legal proceedings by mutual consent. When the brothers and sisters entered into a settlement and obtained an Award from the Lok Adalat by mutual consent/consus-ad-idem and later during execution whether the brothers can be allowed to retract from the Compromise and whether they are not estopped from disputing the validity of Compromise is the issue raised.
3. People approach Court to get life for the right, title or interest either in respect of the property/person. But, whether the right to partition obtained by way of a compromise Award, have life or not is the issue raised in these cases.
4. The Plaintiffs in the Suit in O.S. No. 84 of 2010/the Petitioners in E.P. No. 43 of 2012 and the Respondents in Execution Application Nos. 163, 164, 165 & 166 of 2012 in E.A. No. 141 of 2012 in E.P. No. 43 of 2012 are the Revision Petitioners.
5. The properties which are claimed to be the trust properties were acquired by the Government and the compensation amount was deposited in the Court. Claiming partition over the partition amount, Sisters filed the Suit against their Brothers in O.S. No. 84 of 2010. The Suit claim was settled between the parties, which resulted in passing of the Award by the Lok Adalat on 22.2.2012.
6. Execution Petition No. 43 of 2012 was filed by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs for attachment of the decree amount passed in L.A.O.P. No. 32 of 1998 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul, for a sum of Rs. 57,00,000/-, which is due to them as per the Compromise Award.
7. E.A. No. 141 of 2012 was filed to send for the amount of Rs. 57,00,000/-, from out of Rs. 1,51,45,827/-, deposited in L.A.O.P. No. 32 of 1988, from the file of Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul, to the file of Additional District Court, Dindigul. The Counsel for the Respondents has made an endorsement of no objection. Despite endorsement of no objection, the Additional District Court, Dindigul, passed an order to the effect that he has no power to send for the amount from the file of Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul. Therefore, the Additional District Court has returned the Petition saying that the amount is not deposited with that Court. That made the Petitioners/Plaintiffs to move this Court seeking numbering and expeditious disposal of “send for” Application.
8. Contention was raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that as the property is a trust property, under which women are not given any right, the compromise is not binding upon the Respondents. Holding that the Respondents can agitate the rights before the Executing Court, this Court ordered the Executing Court to take the Execution Application (which was returned), back to file and after numbering it (if in order), to proceed in accordance with law.
9. C.R.P.(MD) No. 2020 of 2012 was filed by the Plaintiffs/Petitioners seeking expeditious disposal of E.P. No. 43 of 2012 on the ground that the Respondents are deliberately filing vexatious Petitions to delay the execution.
9.1. This Court, by order dated 24.9.2012, directed the E.P. to be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.
10. The Respondents in the Execution Petition filed E.A. No. 163 of 2012 seeking re-opening of the Execution Application in E.A. No. 141 of 2012, whereunder the Executing Court, by order dated 7.11.2012, ordered “to send for” the amount from the Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul.
10.1. E.A. No. 164 of 2012 was filed seeking condonation of delay of 21 days in filing the Counter to the Execution Application.
10.2. E.A. No. 165 of 2012 was filed seeking stay of proceedings pass
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
