Fraud vitiates every solemn act. Deliberate deception to gain unfair advantage is unacceptable, and collusion or conspiracy to deprive others of their rights renders the transaction void ab initio.

ORDER :

N. TUKARAMJI, J.

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to set aside/quash the Award dated 13.07.2019 passed by the Lok Adalat, City Civil Court Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad in O.S.No. 814 of 2018 on the file of the XVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on the ground that the Award has been obtained by playing fraud. Consequently to declare the registration of the Award by the Sub-Registrar, Doodbouli,Hyderabad/respondent No.6 and the mutation of the names effected by the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Falakhnama Zone/respondent No.7, as null and void.

2. We have heard Mr. Mayur Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 7 and Mr.Shashikiran Pusluri, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Legal Services Authority/respondent No.5. Mr. C. Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel though filed counter, at hearing informed that, he had given up vakalat for the respondent No.8.

3.1 The facts leading to this writ petition are that in 1976 one K. Mallappa purchased landed property admeasuring 23162 square yards with Municipal No.19-4-14/1 in Sy.Nos.218, 219, 221, 232, and 233 (for short, ‘the subject property’). He died leaving behind his two sons and five daughters.

3.2 The writ petitioners (hereinafter ‘the petitioners’) are the three daughters and the father of respondent Nos.8 and 9/husband of respondent No.10 was the eldest son of K. Mallappa.

3.3 The petitioners by pleading that their father died intestate, in 2014 instituted a suit vide O.S.No.807 of 2014 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for partition and separate possession of the subject property wherein the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent Nos.8 to 10 was arrayed as the defendant No.1. In the written statement, the defendant No.1 had propounded that their father died testate bequeathing the subject land to him under the Will dated 01.08.1982 and he had executed settlement deeds in favour of his sons. However, after the demise of defendant No.1, his sons and wife/respondent Nos.8 to 10 were impleaded in the suit as defendant Nos.5, 7 and 6 respectively. Notably, in the suit vide Order dated 26.09.2014 in I.A.No.1379 of 2014 an ex parte status quo order was granted and the same was in force till 26.11.2020.

3.4 While so, the respondent No.10 by proposing the Wills of M. Mallappa and her husband filed another suit vide O.S.No.814 of 2018 against her sons/respondent Nos.8 and 9 on the file of the XVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking partition and separate possession of the subject property.

3.5 Later the parties got referred the suit O.S.No.814 of 2018 to the Lok Adalat for settlement and the impugned Award was passed on 13.07.2019 distributing the subject property among the respondent Nos.8 to 10. On its strength the respondent Nos.8 to 10 got registered the Award before the Sub-Registrar, Doodbowli, Hyderabad/respondent No.6 and got mutated their names in the revenue records maintained by the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC/respondent No.7. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiffs in O.s.No.807 of 2014 has preferred this writ petition for quashment/setting aside the impugned Award.

4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent Nos.8 to 10 though they are the defendants 5 and 6 in the suit filed by the petitioners, without making the petitioners and other co-parceners as parties, the respondent No.10 filed suit for partition against her sons/respondent Nos.8 and 9 by asserting an unregistered Wills of her father-inlaw/grandfather of respondent Nos.8 and 9 and also her husband/father of respondent Nos.8 and 9. Thereafter collusively got recorded the Award before the Lok Adalat in the guise of compromise and got divided the subject property among themselves. He further contended that the husband of respondent No.10 as defendant No.1 in O.S.No.807 of 201