The obligation to pay under a Lok Adalat award arises from common property sales, reinforcing the binding nature of mutual agreements on debt repayment.

ORDER :

1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.13 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur. The executing Court has passed a docket order in I.A.No.22 of 2007 in the suit, directing the Advocate Commissioner to carry out the warrant and submit his report. The said order is under challenge in the present revision petition.

2. I have heard Mr.V.Raghavachani, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.V.Srimathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Ilamurugu, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the suit filed in O.S.No.13 of 2005 was referred to the Lok Adalat and an award came to be passed with the consent of the parties before the Lok Adalat. He would further state that in terms of the Lok Adalat award, the parties, by resorting to sale of the common properties belonging to them, had to discharge the pending Bank loan and that the respondent/plaintiff had to pay the 1^st defendant a sum of Rs.42 lakhs in respect of the expenses incurred by the revision petitioner. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel would invite my attention to clause (3) of the award of the Lok Adalat dated 16.06.2006.

4. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.V.Raghavachari, that after 2001, the plaintiff had abandoned the construction and it was only the revision petitioner who spent substantial monies, out of his own income, to complete the construction. He would further state that the Bank loan has been discharged from and out of the independent income of the revision petitioner and also by sale of valuable jewels belonging to his wife and sale of one of his personal properties, in order to avoid the common properties being brought for sale in public auction. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore state that it is only under such circumstances that the parties agreed for settling the matter before the Lok Adalat. He would however state that the respondent/plaintiff is now attempting to project a case, as if the sum of Rs.42 lakhs agreed to be paid by the 1^st respondent was from and out of the sale proceeds of the common properties. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.V.Raghavachari, that there was no necessity for the property belonging to the revision petitioner to be sold, in order to pay a sum of Rs.42 lakhs, which was due and payable by the respondent.

5. It is the argument of the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.V.Raghavachari, that the payment of Rs.42 lakhs by the respondent to the petitioner was independent of the sale of the common properties, which was agreed upon only for discharge of the subsisting Bank loans. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that not a single document has been filed by the respondent to establish that he has contributed monies for discharging the Bank loan. He would also invite my attention to the oral evidence adduced by the parties, where the 1^st respondent has admitted that he was not possessed of sufficient funds and he was requesting the petitioner to alienate his properties, in order to avoid the common properties being brought for sale in public auction. He would refer to the fact that after sale of one of the joint properties, the Bank loan itself has been cleared by the petitioner, expending more than Rs.60 lakhs out of his pocket and referring to the passbook of State Bank of India, relating to the current account, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that after sale of a property, in August 2006, the respondent/plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from and out of the sale consideration and on the date of sale, the revision petit