SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Ramesh Ranganathan and S. Ravi Kumar, JJ.
Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Ors. —Appellants
versus
Bhargavi Constructions & Ors. —Respondents
Appeal Suit No.968 of 2013
Decided on 25.6.2015

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. K. Chidambaram, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2:Mr. H. Venugopal, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Order under appeal set aside, not expressed opinion on truth or otherwise of appellants claim that award of Lok Adalat vitiated by fraud, Court below shall adjudicate suit on its merits, in accordance with law.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII, Rule 11, Order XXIII, Rule 3 & Section 9 — Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — Section 21 & 22-E — Whether a party to award passed by Lok Adalat barred by provisions of the Act and S. 9 CPC, from invoking jurisdiction of Civil Court seeking to have award declared as nullity on ground that it obtained by misrepresentation and/or fraud? — HELD — If fraud established can civil Court interfere and set aside award of Lok Adalat. [Para 17]

       (ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII, Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — If suit explicitly or impliedly barred by any law — Can a plaint be rejected under O. VII, R. 11 (d) CPC. [Para 12]

       Result: Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

Ramesh Ranganathan, J.—The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.107 of 2010. They sought a decree in their favour, and against the defendants, to declare para 18 of the compromise recorded in O.S. No.481 of 2007 before the Lok Adalat dated 22.08.2007, in so far as it related to land admeasuring Ac.9.29 gts of land in Sy. Nos.271, 272 and 273 shown to have created rights in favour of defendant No.31 i.e., M/s. Bhargavi Constructions represented by Sri V. Ramachandra Rao, as nonest in law for having been obtained by fraud and collusion, by playing fraud upon the plaintiffs; and for grant of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, especially defendant No.31, their agents, servants, employees etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule A, B and C properties.

2. In this plaint filed in O.S. No.107 of 2010, the appellants stated that the 1st plaintiff had purchased land admeasuring Ac.25.00 cts in Sy. Nos.262, 274 under registered sale deed dated 06.07.1974 from Sri Jamaluddin and others; the first plaintiff also purchased Ac.6.10 gts from Sri Jamaluddin in the year 1975, which was confirmed by a deed of confirmation dated 24.04.1985; Sri Mohd. Kareemuddin had obtained a loan from Sri K. Mutyam Reddy, and had mortgaged the land admeasuring Ac.6.10 guntas, in the year 1982, by executing the mortgage deed; in addition thereto, land admeasuring Ac.12.20 gts was also in possession of the plaintiffs since June, 1993; between themselves, the plaintiffs were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of a total extent of Ac.50.00 gts of land in Sy. Nos.262 to 274 in Poppulaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; as Sri Md. Khairuddin, Ajeemuddin and Kareemuddin, were interfering, the 1st plaintiff filed the injunction suit in O.S. No.333 of 1992 which was decreed in his favour; as the patta was not mutated in his name, the 1st plaintiff filed O.S. No.259 of 1994 against Sri Jamaladdin and others for declaration of his title and for perpetual injunction; on O.S. No.259 of 1994 being dismissed on 05.04.2004, the 1st plaintiff filed A.S. No.2323 of 2005; during the pendency of the said appeal, the 1st defendant filed O.S. No.481 of 2007 for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 28.12.1995 in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.51.29 gts in Sy. No.262 to 274 of Poppulaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; the plaintiffs, in the present Suit, were arrayed as defendants 22 to 25 therein; however, on the intervention of mediators, a compromise was arrived at; under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs were to relinquish Ac.41.34 gts, and the 1st plaintiff would be left with Ac.9.29 gts; from out of the total extent of Ac.41.34 gts, it was agreed that Ac.10.20 gts of land would be transferred in the name of Sri Ratangapani Reddy i.e., the son-in-law of the first plaintiff; the remaining land was to be given to the 1st plaintiff; an area of land, admeasuring Ac.6.25 gts, had been acquired for the outer ring road; the schedule of payment of money was also incorporated, in the compromise, only to the extent of Ac.25.00 gts; the defendants surreptitiously added therein that the plaintiffs had given up their rights in respect of land admeasuring Ac.9.29 gts in favour of M/s. Bhargavi Constructions, represented by Sri V. Ramachandra Rao, who were not parties to O.S. No.481 of 2007; no compromise could be recorded with persons who were not parties to the suit; immediately after the compromise was recorded in the Lok Adalat, a sale deed was executed on the same day in favour of M/s. Grandbay Estate Developers Ltd and Venezia Estate Developers Ltd., vide document No.8379 of 2007 dated 22.08.2007 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.14.02 gts in Sy. Nos.263 to 270; another agreement of sale with irrevocable GPA dated 22.08.2007 was entered into with Sri K. Ratangapani Reddy in respect of land admeasur
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top