Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
P.K. Jaiswal and Virender Singh, JJ.
Shanti Devi (Smt.) and others v. Indore Cloth Market Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit and others
First Appeal No.1217 of 2013 (Indore); against award dated 31.8.2013 passed by Lok Adalat; Decided on 27.6.2017.
¼2½ fof/kd lsok izkf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1987 & /kkjk 21¼2½ & yksd vnkyr dk vf/kfu.kZ; & dk izHkko vkSj fof/kekU;rk & fookfnr Hkwfe & ewy HkwfeLokeh ls diM+k cktkj x`g fuekZ.k lfefr] bankSj us Ø; dh & ogh Hkwfe iqu% ewy HkwfeLokeh ds eq[rkjukek /kkjd }kjk vU; O;fDr dks varfjr dh xbZ & mlh Hkwfe ds bl izdkj vusd laO;ogkj gq, & izFke Øsrk }kjk okn izLrqr fd;k x;k & yksd vnkyr ds le{k izFke ,oa i'pkr~orhZ Øsrk ds e/; ekeys esa le>kSrk gqvk & ,sls le>kSrk ds vk/kkj ij & yksd vnkyr }kjk vf/kfu.kZ; fd;k x;k & le>kSrk esa dksbZ diV gksuk LFkkfir ugha & le>kSrk fof/kekU; ,oa oS/k Fkk & yksd vnkyr }kjk fd;k x;k vf/kfu.kZ; vkc)dj vkSj vafre gS & vihy [kkfjt dh xbZA 2009 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 96] , vkb vkj 1993 ,l lh 1139 rFkk , vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 853 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 2] 5] 20] 21 ,oa 25½
¼3½ fof/kd lsok izkf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1987 & /kkjk 22[k rFkk 22x & yksd vnkyr dh /ku&laca/kh vf/kdkfjrk & yafcr ekeyksa ds fy, & /ku&laca/kh vf/kdkfjrk ds fo"k; esa & vf/kfu;e }kjk dksbZ mica/k ugha cuk;k x;k & LFkk;h yksd vnkyr ds fy, & #i;s 10 yk[k rd /ku&laca/kh vf/kdkfjrk r; yksd vnkyr }kjk fd, x, vfèkfu.kZ; ds fo#) vihy & /ku&laca/kh vf/kdkfjrk ds fo"k; esa vkifÙk & ,sls fook|d dk fopkj djus ds fy, vihy U;k;ky; leqfpr U;k;ky; ugha gS & ogh leqfpr dk;Zokfg;ksa esa mBkbZ tk ldrh gS & vihy esa ,slh vkifÙk pykus ;ksX; ughaA ¼iSjk 22½
¼4½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 96 & vihy dk vf/kdkj & lfefr us yksd vnkyr ds le{k ekeys dk le>kSrk fd;k & ,sls le>kSrk ds vk/kkj ij & yksd vnkyr }kjk vf/kfu.kZ; fd;k x;k & ,slh lfefr ds lnL; dks vihy izLrqr djus dk vf/kdkj gSA , vkb vkj 1971 ,l lh 385] , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 994 rFkk , vkb vkj 2003 ,l lh 1989 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 23½
¼5½ vihy & dk vf/kdkj & lkekU; fl)kar & dksbZ O;fDr vihy ugha dj ldrk tc rd fd og dk;Zokfg;ksa esa i{kdkj ugha Fkk & fQj Hkh] dksbZ O;fDr tks fMØh ;k vkns'k esa i{kdkj ugha Fkk & ;fn og vkns'k ls ;k rks vkc) gS & ;k blls O;fFkr gS & ;k blls izfrdwy :i ls izHkkfor gS & ;k mls fof/kd f'kdk;r gS ftlls mls Qk;ns ls oafpr gksuk iM+k & ,slk O;fDr vihy izLrqr djus dk gd~nkj gSA , vkb vkj 1971 ,l lh 385] , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 994 rFkk , vkb vkj 2003 ,l lh 1989 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 23½
¼6½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 96 & vihy dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk & dk;kZy; }kjk U;k;ky; Qhl dh =qfV;k¡ crkbZ xbZ & lalkf/kr ugha dh xbZ & ,slh =qfV esa vihy [kkfjt dh xbZ & fdarq vihy ds izR;korZu ds i'pkr~ Hkh & ,slh =qfV lalkf/kr ugha dh xbZ & bu vk/kkjksa ij Hkh vihy pykus ;ksX; ugha gS & vihy [kkfjt dh xbZA ¼iSjk 24 ,oa 25½
(1) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.96(3) -- maintainability of appeal -- on compromise -- award passed by Lok Adalat -- appeal against such award is not maintainable unless any fraud is established. AIR 2005 SC 3575 and AIR 2008 SC 1209 followed. [Paras 3 to 5
(2) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 -- S.21(2) -- award of Lok Adalat -- affect and validity of -- disputed land -- purchased by Cloth Market Housing Society, Indore from original Bhumiswami -- same land again transferred to third person by power of attorney holder of original Bhumiswami -- so many transactions of same land took place -- suit filed by first purchaser -- before Lok Adalat -- matter compromised between first and subsequent purchaser -- on basis of such compromise -- award made by Lok Adalat -- no any fraud in compromise established -- compromise was valid and legal -- award made by Lok Adalat is binding and final -- appeal dismissed. 2009(3) JLJ 96, AIR 1993 SC 1139 and AIR 1994 SC 853 referred to. [Paras 2, 5, 20, 21 & 25
(3) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 -- Ss.22B and 22C -- pecuniary jurisdiction of Lok Adalat -- for pending cases -- about pecuniary jurisdiction -- no provision settled by Act -- for permanent Lok Adalat -- pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs.10 lacs settled -- appeal against award made by Lok Adalat -- objection about pecuniary jurisdiction -- appellate Court is not appropriate forum to consider such issue -- same may be raised in appropriate proceedings -- such objection is not tenable in appeal. [Para 22
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.96 -- right to appeal -- society compromised in matter before Lok Adalat -- on basis of such compromise -- award made by Lok Adalat -- member of such society has locus to file appeal. AIR 1971 SC 385, AIR 1974 SC 994 and AIR 2003 SC 1989 referred to. [Para 23
(5) Appeal -- right to -- general principle of -- no one can appeal unless he was party to proceedings -- however, any person who is not party to decree or order -- if he is either bound by order -- or is aggrieved by it -- or is prejudicially affected by it -- or has legal grievance which deprived him of benefit -- such person is entitled to file appeal. AIR 1971 SC 385, AIR 1974 SC 994 and AIR 2003 SC 1989 referred to. [Para 23
(6) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.96 -- maintainability of appeal -- defects of court-fees pointed out by office -- not cured -- appeal dismissed for such defaults -- but even after restoration of appeal -- such defects not cured -- on these grounds also appeal is not maintainable -- appeal dismissed. [Paras 24 & 25
Singh, J. -- 1. The challenge in this first appeal is to the award passed by Lok Adalat dated 31.8.2013.
2. There is no doubt that every award made by the Lok Adalat is final and binding on all the parties to the dispute and no appeal lies against such award. Section 21(2) of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 reads thus:-
“Section 21(2) : Every award made by Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award.”
3. Section 96(3) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides :-
“Section 96 (3) : No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of the parties.”
4. In this regard we can also refer P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job [AIR 2005 SC 3575], State of Punjab and another v. Jalour Singh and others [AIR 2008 SC 1209].
5. It is well settled that award of Lok Adalat can only be challenged on the ground of fraud as fraud vitiates all proceedings and voids all judicial acts. Illegality or competency of the parties of the compromise may also be considered while examining the validity of such award.
6. In this regard we can refer Banwari Lal v. Smt. Chandro Devi [AIR 1993 SC 1139], S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [AIR 1994 SC 853] and Bhanwari Bai v. Kashmir Singh [2009(3) JLJ 96=AIR 2009 MP 232].
7. In this back drop of well settled legal proposition, now we go through the facts.
8. The land bearing Survey Nos.13/1 area 1.437 hectare, 13/6 area 0.202 hectare, 12/2 area 1.254 and 13/5 area No.0324 hectare (Total area 3.338 hectare) are the subject matter of the present litigation. Undisputedly, respondent No.2 Harjinder Singh and respondent No.3 Jagdish Singh were the original owners of the above said land.
9. Peculiar facts of this case travel in two streams since start of the controversy. First stream is that respondent No.1 Cloth Market Housing Society, Indore (hereinafter referred to as “Cloth Market Society”) purchased the land from its owners Harjinder Singh (respondent No.2) and Jagdish Singh (respondent No.3) on 1.1.1996 for the housing needs of its members. On 11.9.1996, Omprakash and Satyanarayan Bajaj (respondents No.4
and 5) President and Secretary of the Society, sold the land to one Nakoda Grih Nirman Cooperative Society, Maryadit (in short “Nakoda Society”).
10. Second stream of the facts is that on 19.2.1997 original owners of the disputed land Harjinder Singh and Jagdish Singh (respondents No.2 and 3) executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Madanlal s/o Chogalal Jain (respondent No.6), who on the strength of this power of attorney executed a sale deed of the said land in favour of Nav Bharat Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit (in short “Nav Bharat Society”). Subsequently, Nav Bharat Society alienated the property in favour of Taiyab Ali (or Taiyabi) Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vide sale deed dated 10.9.2009.
11. Later on, as the fact of these alienations/sale deeds came to the knowledge of the then president of the Cloth Market Society Sitaram Vyas, he filed a Civil Suit No.32-A/2010 in the Court of District Judge, Indore on 23.8.2010.
12. During pendency of the civil suit, succeeding President of the Cloth Market Society Ashwini Kumar with ex-president Shri Sitaram Vyas entered into the compromise with Taiyab Ali and agreed to renounce all the claims of the Cloth Market Society on the disputed land in favour of Tauyab Ali on payment of certain amount to be disbursed amongst the members of the society to refund their money collected from them to allot them plots in the disputed land. In pursuance of this agreement, a compromise was filed before the Lok Adalat, which was accepted and an award was passed. This award is under challenge in the present appeal.
13. Few more facts which are relevant and have significant impact on the present controversy have also emerged out from the application filed by the respondent and also from the award passed by the Lok Adalat. According to these facts; the disputed land was decla
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
