The court established that the failure to comply with the terms of a decree for specific performance can result in rescission of the decree, and the original decree will prevail over subsequent awards or agreements.

ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 115 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decree dated 19.10.2016 made in E.P.No.61 of 2009 in O.S.No.79 of 1997, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur.

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 115 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decree dated 19.07.2017 made in unnumbered E.P.No. of 2017, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur.

C.R.P.(MD)No.2488 of 2016 has been filed against the order, dated 19.10.2016 made in E.P.No.61 of 2009 in O.S.No.79 of 1997, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur.

2. C.R.P.(MD)No.556 of 2018 has been filed against the order, dated 19.07.2017 made in unnumbered E.P.No. of 2017, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur.

3. In C.R.P.(MD)No.2488 of 2016, the revision petitioner is the second defendant, before the trial Court. The first respondent is the plaintiff, and the third respondent is the third defendant before the trial Court.

4. In C.R.P.(MD)No.556 of 2018, the revision petitioners are the defendants, and the respondent is the plaintiff before the trial Court.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per the litigative status before the trial Court.

6. It appears that there was a decree against the defendant in O.S.No.79 of 1997 for the relief of specific performance. Since the said decree was not complied with, the plaintiff/decree holder has filed an execution petition in E.P.No.72 of 2004. In which he ultimately got the decree executed by getting the sale deed in his name.

7. However, though the sale deed was obtained through Court, the decree holder did not deliver the vacant possession of the property. The same necessitated the plaintiff to file an another execution petition in E.P.No.152 of 2004 for delivery of possession. More interestingly, at the stage of delivery of possession, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat and culminated into an award dated 08.07.2008. For ready reference, the terms of the Lok Adalat award is extracted hereunder:

Terms of compromise

OTHER LANGUAGE

8. According to the Lok Adalat award, three months time was granted to the defendant/judgment debtor to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-. In the event of payment of the said amount, then the plaintiff/decree holder agreed to cancel the sale deed and to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.79 of 1997. But fortunately or unfortunately, the defendant was not in a position to pay the amount until 19.01.2011, though he was directed to pay the amount within three months from the date of the Lok Adalat award qua from 08.07.2008.

9. It appears from the record that, since no payment was forthcoming in terms of the Lok Adalat award dated 08.07.2008, the plaintiff again on 27.07.2009, has filed yet another execution petition in E.P.No.61 of 2009 for the relief of delivery of possession, since, the earlier E.P.No.152 of 2004 for the relief of delivery of possession resulted in the Lok Adalat award.

10. When the second execution petition in E.P.No.61 of 2009 was taken up before the Court below, it was argued by the defendant that the conditions laid down in the Lok Adalat award has been complied on 19.01.2011. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for delivery of possession and that he should execute the deed of re-sale in favour of the defendants. However, the Court below has not accepted the contention of the defendants herein and has ordered for the delivery of possession vide order dated 19.11.2016.

11. It is also relevant to mention here that, based upon the Lok Adalat award, dated 08.07.2008, the defendants has filed a separate execution petition for directing the decree holder to comply the Lok Adalat award. However, the said execution petition has been returned without numbering. The same is also under challenge in C.R.P.(MD)No.556 of 2018.

12. Now, the short point to be considered is, whether the