Back
S.K. Gangele, J.
Bhanwari Bai (Mahila) v. Kashmir Singh and others
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 987 of 2006 (Gwalior) : against order of
II Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Sheopur, passed in
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.31-A of 2006; Decided on : 12.5.2009.
It is clear that if the Court passing the decree has usurped a jurisdiction which it did not have, that order or decree is void and null. In the present case, the compromise was not lawful because it is stated earlier that the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 Mahila Bhanwari Bai, who entered into a compromise, had no legal rights to compromise the matter. A part from this, the appellants did not authorize the Advocate to enter into a compromise, hence, in such circumstances, the compromise order passed by the Lok Adalat is void ab initio. (2004) 1 SCC 287 and (1992) 1 SCC 31 followed. [Para 10
(2) Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 -- S.21(2) --Civil P.C, 1908 -- S.96 -- prohibition of appeal against award of Lok Adalat under S.21 (2) of the Act is in case of valid award n award void n appeal lis under S.96, IPC.
This section prohibits the appeal against the award of the Lok Adalat, if the award has been passed by the authorities legally. The intention of legislature in prohibiting an appeal against the award of Lok Adalat is to give finality to the award so unnecessary further litigation could be saved, however, when the award is void ab initio, the parties who entered into compromise had no power to enter into the compromise and the compromise has been entered by playing a fraud, in such circumstances, that award could be said to be a void and, admittedly, the compromise has been entered before the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and when the order was void in that circumstances, an appeal could be maintainable under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. 1994(I) MPWN 111 (SC) and (2008)2 SCC 660 followed.
[Para 14
(3) Order -- obtained by playing fraud -- can be challenged of any stage even in collateral proceeding or execution n it is a nullity. AIR 2007 SC 1546 and (2006)3 SCC 605 followed. [Para 17
¼1½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && fu-23 fu-3 rFkk 3[k && le>kSrs dh fMdzh && le>kSrs ds i{kdkjksa dk Hkwfe esa dksbZ vf/kdkj ;k gd ugha && dkmUlsy us fcuk vfHkO;Dr izkf/kdkj ds le>kSrs dh ;kfpdk ij gLrk{kj fd, && le>kSrk vd`r rFkk ‘kwU; gSA ;g Li"V gS fd ;fn fMdzh ikfjr djus okys U;k;ky; us vf/kdkfjrk dk vuf/kdkj iz;ksx fd;k gS tks bls ugha Fkk] vkns‘k ;k fMdzh ‘kwU; rFkk vd`r gS izLrqr ekeys esa] le>kSrk fof/kiw.kZ ugha gS D;ksafd ;g igys gh crk;k x;k gS oknhx.k rFkk izfroknh dz-4 efgyk Hkaojh ckbZ dks ftUgksuas le>kSrk fd;k] ekeys esa le>kSrk djus ds fof/kd vf/kdkj ugha FksA blds vfrfjDRk] vihykFkhZx.k us vf/koDrk dks le>kSrk ds fy, izkf/kd`r ugha fd;k Fkk] blfy,] bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] yksd vnkyr }kjk ikfjr le>kSrs dk vkns‘k vkjaHk ls ‘kwU; gSA ¼2004½1 ,l lh lh 287 rFkk ¼1992½¼1½,l lh lh 31 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 10½ ¼2½ fof/kd lsok izkf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1987 && /kkjk 21¼2½ && flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 96 && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21¼2½ ds v/khu yksd vnkyr ds vf/kfu.kZ; ds fo#) vihy dk izfr"ks/k oS/k vf/kfu.kZ; dh fLFkfr esa gS && vf/kfu.kZ; ‘kwU; && /kkjk 96] flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds v/khu vihy gksxhA bl /kkjk }kjk yksd vnkyr ds vf/kfu.kZ; ds fo#) vihy dk izfr"ks/k gS] ;fn vf/kfu.kZ; izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk oS/k :i ls ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA yksd vnkyr ds vf/kfu.kZ; ds fo#) vihy dk izfr"ks/k djus esa fo/kkueaMy dk vk‘k; vf/kfu.kZ; dks vafrerk nsuk gS rkfd vuko’;d vfrfjDr eqdnesckth ls cpk tk lds] rFkkfi] tc vf/kfu.kZ; vkjaHk ls ‘kwU; gS] i{kdkjksa dks] ftUgksusa le>kSrk fd;k] le>kSrk djus dh ‘kfDr ugha Fkh rFkk le>kSrk diV }kjk fd;k x;k gS] bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] og vf/kfu.kZ; dk ‘kwU; gksuk dgk tk ldrk Fkk] Lohd`r :i ls] yksd vnkyr ds le{k le>kSrk flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj fd;k x;k gS rFkk tc vkns‘k mu ifjfLFkfr;ksa es ‘kwU; gS] flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk ds v/khu vihy ekU; dh tk ldrh FkhA 1994¼1½ e- iz- ohDyh uksV~l 111 ¼mPpre U;k-½ rFkk ¼2008½2 ,l lh lh 660 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14½ ¼3½ vkns‘k & diV }kjk izkIRk fd;k x;k && fdlh Hkh izdze esa ;gk¡ rd fd lkaikf"oZd dk;Zokgh ;k fu"iknu esa Hkh vkf{kIRk fd;k tk ldrk gS && ;g vd`r gSA , vkb vkj 2007 ,l lh 1546 rFkk ¼2006½3 ,l lh lh 605 vuqlfjr A
1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Order 43 rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 29.9.2006, passed by the II Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Sheopur, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.31-A/2006, quashing the compromise order dated 10.9.2000 passed by the Lok Adalat in Case No. 1/2000 in Civil Suit No. 186-A/1998.
2. The plaintiffs Kashmir Singh, Ummed Singh, Sarvan Kumar Singh and Ramkrishna Singh filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. In the aforesaid suit initally the State of Madhya Pradesh, Tahsildar, one Sundara and Mahila Bhanwari Bai were defendants. Mahila Bhanwari Bai was the defendant No.4. Subsequently, the name of defendant No.3 Sundara slo Keshara, has been deleted. The plaintiffs pleaded in the suit that father of the plaintiffs Kalyan Singh had been in possession of the suit land and his possession was recorded upto Samvat 2027. He died on 6th June, 1991 and thereafter name of Devalya @ Douja has been recorded as Bhumiswami of the land from Samvat 2026-2030. Devalya sold the land by a registered sale-deed dated 22.2.1969 in favour of Sundara. The name of Sundara was also got mutated as Bhurniswami over the land vide order dated 13.9.1982, however, the father of the plaintiffs and Devalya had been in possession of the land and thereafter the plaintiffs had been in possession of the land. The Tahsildar, Sheopurkalan, District Morena defendant No.2 issued a proclamation with regard to auction of the land on 31.8.1991. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiffs claimed a relief for declaration and permanent injunction. On behalf of defendants No.1 and 2, State of Madhya Pradesh, through Collector and Tahsildar, a separate written statement has been filed before the Court. In the aforesaid written statement, it has been pleaded that the name of Devalya @ Douja was recorded as Bhumiswami of the land from Samvat 2026-2030, however, thereafter the defendant No.4 has been recorded as Bhumiswami of the land in the revenue record. It has further been denied that the plaintiffs and father of the plaintiffs had been in possession over the land. It has further been stated that after Devalya, the land was acquired by the State Government and it had been given to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sheopur and the land was also auctioned for agriculture purpose by the Tahsildar. The defendant No.4 filed a separate written statement and she pleaded that the plaintiffs have no right over the land. The matter was listed before the Lok Adalat for compromise. The issues have also been framed by the trial Court and one of the issue was that whether the plaintiffs and father of the plaintiffs were in possession over the suit land? or whether they are the owner of the suit land? In the Lok Adalat the case was compromised between the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 Mahila Bhanwari Bai and as per the aforesaid compromise, the Lok Adalat passed an order dated 10.9.2000. As per the aforesaid order, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was rejected. The defendant No.4 Mahila Bhanwari Bai has been declared as. owner of the suit land and it has also been declared that she was entitled to have mutation in her favour of the land and a further order was passed that no body would interfere in her possession.
3. After passing passing of the order, appellants No.1, 2 and 3 who are plaintiffs No.1, 3 and 4, filed an appeal before the appellate Court against the order of compromise of the Lok Adalat, which was presided by one Civil Judge. It has been mentioned in the appeal that the appellants did not authorize the Advocate to sign the compromise application before the Lok Adalat. The land was sold to Sundara by registered sale-deed and the defendant No.4 was never in possession over the land, hence, the order and compromise of the Lok Adalat is void and illegal. The learned appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree set aside the order passed by the Lok Adala
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
