A suit challenging a conciliation award must adhere to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; alternative civil suits for the same purpose are barred, and allegations of fraud need factual substantiation.

JUDGMENT :

K.Murali Shankar, J.

These appeals are directed against the order made in I.A.No.5 of 2023 in O.S.No.72 of 2022, dated 29.08.2024 rejecting the plaint.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in the original suit.

3. The appellants in both appeals have filed a suit to declare that the conciliation proceedings of the seventh defendant culminating in the conciliation award dated 02.01.2019 propounded by the defendants is a fraudulent and fabricated document, void and illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs and to declare that the Kaithadi Baga Pirivinai Pathiram dated 31.12.2018 propounded by the defendants has no legal status and it is not binding on the plaintiffs as it is neither registered nor having sufficient stamp duty.

4. The relationship not in dispute is that the first plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers, that the second plaintiff is the wife and the plaintiffs 3 to 5 are the sons of the first plaintiff, that the sixth plaintiff is the wife of the third plaintiff, that the second defendant is the wife, and the defendants 8 and 9 are the sons and the 11^th defendant is the daughter of the first defendant, that the fifth defendant is the wife of the third defendant and that the seventh defendant is the step-brother of the first defendant and the first plaintiff.

5. Pending suit, the first defendant filed a petition invoking Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., seeking to reject the plaint. The plaintiffs 1 to 6 as respondents 1 to 6 have filed their counter statement raising objections. The defendants 2 to 7 who are the respondents 7 to 12 have not filed any counter statement. During enquiry, the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 6 have produced and exhibited 16 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.16. The learned Principal District Judge, after enquiry, passed the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 allowing the petition in I.A.No.5 of 2023 and thereby rejected the plaint. Aggrieved by the rejection of plaint, the plaintiffs 3 and 5 have filed an appeal in A.S.(MD)No.252 of 2024 and the remaining plaintiffs have filed another appeal in A.S.(MD)No.253 of2024.

6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

7. The facts not in dispute are :

(a) The first plaintiff, the first defendant, and their brother S.Chandresan were partners/directors in various family businesses, with the primary business involving the separation of minerals from raw beach sand. The family held several leases in the districts of Tuticorin, Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari, and in the state of Andhra Pradesh, operating under the name and style of M/s. V.V.Minerals. The family was also involved in V.V.Minerals (100% export-oriented unit), Edison Paints and Chemicals, V.V.Marine Products, Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Vijay Cements, and Vetrivel Marketing and Warehousing entities.

(b) The first defendant is the founder of the V.V.Minerals Group and serves as the Managing Director of the companies and Managing Partner of the firms. The first plaintiff was the then Joint Managing Director and overall financial controller of the firms and companies.

(c) In 2009, the brothers' disputes came to a head, and S.Chandresan demanded partition. To settle the dispute, Mr. Justice Shivaraj V.Patil, a retired Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was appointed as the Arbitrator. During the arbitration, the parties reached a compromise, dividing the properties i