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

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 707

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA 
P. SAM KOSHY, N. TUKARAMJI, JJ.
Smt. Yachamaneni Boinpally Nirosha - Appellant
Vs.
The District Legal Services Authority - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 26223 of 2023, Writ Petition No. 13064 of 2024
Decided On : 27-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : VEMUGANTI MAHESH KUMAR
For the Respondent: SHASHI KIRAN PUSLURI SC FOR TSLSA

Claims of fraud must be substantiated with evidence to invalidate Lok Adalat settlements, which are generally recognized as valid unless proven otherwise.

Headnote:(A) The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections pertaining to suits and awards - Writ petitions seeking to set aside Lok Adalat Awards - Validity of amicable settlements in light of claims of fraud by third parties - The court found that mere claims of fraud without substantive basis do not invalidate the awards. (Paras 11, 12, 20)

(B) Legal Principles of Settlement - The validity of settlements in Lok Adalat recognized, emphasizing the finality of such awards unless proved otherwise. The court ruled that any challenge to prior settlements must be substantiated with evidence of fraud. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The writ petitions arise from suits involving property disputes settled by Lok Adalat Awards. The applicants argue that these settlements were fraudulent and sought to nullify the awards issued on 29.03.2019 and 23.08.2017. The respective awards involved relinquishment deeds executed by parties acknowledging their rights.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the awards were not influenced by fraud, and previous transactions involving relinquishment deeds were validated, binding on the petitioners.

Issues: The critical issues addressed included the validity of Lok Adalat settlements and whether any fraudulent conduct had occurred in reaching these settlements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that claims of fraud must be evidence-based to invalidate legal awards and that amicable settlements through Lok Adalat are presumed valid unless proven otherwise.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. writ petitions filed to challenge lok adalat awards. (Para 1)
2. issuance of writ of certiorari sought. (Para 2 , 3)
3. background of the respective suits and settlements. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. petitioners argue fraud in lok adalat settlements. (Para 11 , 12)
5. court's analysis of fraudulent claims and settlements. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. (Para 21)

ORDER :

N. Tukaramji, J.

We have heard Mr. Vemuganti Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Shashikiran Pusluri, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Legal Services Authority/respondent No.1 in both the writ petitions and Mr.Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 5 and 11 in W.P.No.26223 of 2023 and for respondent No.5 in W.P.No.13064 of 2024.

2. W.P.No.26223 of 2023 has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for record in Lok Adalat Case No.250 of 2019 in O.S.No.220 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar and to set aside the Lok Adalat Award dated 29.03.2019.

3. W.P.No.13064 of 2024 has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for record in Lok Adalat Case No.1052 of 2017 in O.S.No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and to set aside the Lok Adalat Award dated 23.08.2017.

4. The writ petitioners are third parties to the respective suit proceedings.

5. W.P.No.26223 of 2023: The suit O.S.No.220 of 2012 was filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 12 herein seeking perpetual injunction against the respondent Nos.13 and 14 herein in respect of the suit schedule properties in item Nos.I to V, total admeasuring Ac.03.18 guntas in Sy.Nos.16/A to 16/D situated at Seetharampur Village of Karimnagar Mandal and District.

6. In the suit, Mr.Alla Kondal Reddy/the plaintiff No.10 and Mohammed Ibrahim @ Nawab/defendant No.1 (vendor of the writ petitioners) have amicably settled the issues in respect of item No.II and IV of the suit schedule property i.e. Ac.01.27 guntas in Sy.Nos.16/A to 16/D situated at Seetharampur village of Karimnagar Mandal and District whereby the defendant No.1 admitted the title and possession of the plaintiff No.10 over the suit schedule property of Item Nos.II and IV. Accordingly, on 29.03.2019 an Award has been passed.

7. W.P.No.13064 of 2024: The respondent No.2 herein as plaintiff (respondent No.13 in Writ Petition No.26223 of 2023 and defendant No.1 in O.S.No.220 of 2012) filed suit vide O.S.No.4 of 2011 against the respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein/defendant Nos.1 to 4 seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction and also to declare the sale deed dated 25.09.2009 as null and void and not binding on him in respect of the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.01.08 guntas in Sy.Nos.16/A to 16/D situated at Seetharampur Village of Karimnagar Mandal and District.

8. The suit was settled between the parties and Award was passed through Lok Adalat on 23.08.2017 whereby the respondent No.2/plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.4 of 2011 (vendor of the writ petitioners/respondent No.13 in W.P.No.26223 of 2023 and defendant No.1 in O.S.No.220 of 2012) had executed registered deeds relinquishing his rights in favour of the owners of the property and the defendant No.3/Nampally Nagarjuna Chary and Bukka Poshetty and affirmed registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 04.07.2012 in favour of Nampelly Ravikanth, S/o.Nagarjuna Chary and the relinquishment deed on 15.12.2015. Additionally executed four registered relinquishment deeds and accepted that the suit schedule property has to be enjoyed by the defendants.

9. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the petitioners (in W.P.No.13064 of 2024) had purchased 244.44 square yards, 201.66 square yards and 215 square yards from Mohammad Ibrahim/respondent No.2 (defendant No.1 in O.S.No.220 of 2012 and plaintiff in O.S.No.4 of 2011 hereinafter ‘the defendant No.1’) under registered sale deeds dated 30.01.2015, 24.08.2016

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